Case C-112/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen by order of that Court of 14 March 2002 in the case of Kohlpharma GmbH against Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2002-06-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, import, interpretation of the law, marketing, medicinal product

C 156/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.6.2002

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwal-
tungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen by order
of that Court of 14 March 2002 in the case of Kohlpharma
GmbH against Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-112/02)

(2002/C 156/07)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberverwaltungs-
gericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Higher Administrat-
ive Court of North Rhine-Westphalia) of 14 March 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 27 March 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Kohlpharma GmbH against
Federal Republic of Germany on the following question:

Is it justified under Article 30 EC or other Community law for
the competent German authority to obstruct the parallel
import of a medicinal product by refusing authorisation under
the simplified procedure, contrary to Article 28 EC, although
on the one hand it accepts that the medicinal product to be
imported (Jumex), authorised for Chiese Farmaceutici S.p.A. in
Italy, is as regards the medically active ingredient (Selegilinhy-
drochloride) identical to the medicinal product (Movergan)
produced by the German authorisation holder Orion Pharma
GmbH, the medically active ingredient of which is delivered to
the Italian firm by the manufacturer, located in Hungary, on
the basis of a licensing agreement but to the German firm
solely on the basis of a supply agreement with Orion Corp.
Finland, either directly or via Finland, if on the other hand the
German authority does not give, as regards the medically
active ingredient or the excipients, which the authorities
consider to differ both qualitatively and quantitatively in the
present case, reasons to show that the two medicinal products
are not identical, and in particular are not manufactured
according to the same formulation and using the same active
ingredient or that they have the same therapeutic effects?

Action brought on 27 March 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
Republic

(Case C-117/02)

(2002/C 156/08)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by allowing the approval of a project in the
tourist sector which included construction of housing,
hotels and golf clubs in the Ponta do Abano area, without
an appropriate assessment of its environmental impact,
the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 2(1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC(1) of
27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment;

— Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that the correct transposition
of Article 2(1) and Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC cannot
be relied upon by the Portuguese Republic in order to exempt
from the assessment obligation provided for in Article 2(1) a
specific project which, as in the case of the project relating to
work carried out in the area of Ponta do Abano, although
falling within the scope of Annex II to that directive, is likely
to have a significant impact on the environment by virtue of
their nature, size or location.

(1) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State
by judgment of that Court of 27 March 2002 in the case
of Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee,
also acting on behalf of Nederlandse Vereniging tot
Bescherming van Vogels against Staatssecretaris van Land-
bouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij

(Case C-127/02)

(2002/C 156/09)

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 March
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Anto´ nio Caeiros, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Raad van State
(Council of State) of 27 March 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 8 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee, also
acting on behalf of Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming
van Vogels against Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuur-
beheer en Visserij on the following questions: