Case C-210/02: Action brought on 4 June 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2002-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, health legislation, ionising radiation, national implementing measure, public health, therapeutics

C 180/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.7.2002

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
(England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that
court dated 24 May 2002, in the case of 1) The British
Horseracing Board Limited, 2) The Jockey Club and
3) Weatherbys Group Limited against William Hill Organ-
ization Limited

(Case C-203/02)

(2002/C 180/23)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
(England and Wales) (Civil Division) dated 24 May 2002,
which was received at the Court Registry on 31 May 2002, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of 1) The British Horseracing
Board Limited, 2) The Jockey Club and 3) Weatherbys Group
Limited against William Hill Organization Limited, on the
following questions:

(1) May either of the expressions:

(a)

‘substantial part of the contents of the database’; or

(b)

‘insubstantial parts of the contents of the database’

in Article 7 of the Directive (1) include works, data or
other materials derived from the database but which do
not have the same systematic or methodical arrangement
of and individual accessibility to be found in the database?

(2) What is meant by ‘obtaining’

in Article 7(1) of the
Directive? In particular, are the facts and matters in
paragraphs 24-31 above capable of amounting to such
obtaining?

(3)

Is ‘verification’ in Article 7(1) of the Directive limited to
ensuring from time to time that information contained in
a database is or remains correct?

(4) What is meant in Article 7(1) of the Directive, by the

expressions:

(a)

(b)

‘a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively ... of the
contents of that database’? and

‘a substantial part, evaluated quantitatively ... of the
contents of that database’?

(5) What is meant in Article 7(5) of the Directive, by the

expression ‘insubstantial parts of the database’?

(6)

In particular, in each case:

(7)

(8)

Is ‘extraction’ in Article 7 of the Directive limited to the
transfer of the contents of the database directly from the
database to another medium, or does it also include the
transfer of works, data or other materials, which are
derived indirectly from the database, without having
direct access to the database?

Is ‘re-utilisation’ in Article 7 of the Directive limited to
the making available to the public of the contents of the
database directly from the database, or does it also include
the making available to the public of works, data or other
materials which are derived indirectly from the database,
without having direct access to the database?

(9)

Is ‘re-utilisation’ in Article 7 of the Directive limited to
the first making available to the public of the contents of
the database?

(10) In Article 7(5) of the Directive what is meant by ‘acts
which conflict with a normal exploitation of that database
or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the
maker of the database’? In particular, are the facts and
matters in paragraphs 40-47 above in the context of the
facts and matters in paragraphs 32-35 above capable of
amounting to such acts?

(11) Does Article 10(3) of the Directive mean that, whenever
there is a ‘substantial change’
to the contents of a
database, qualifying the resulting database for its own
term of protection,
the resulting database must be
considered to be a new, separate database, including for
the purposes of Article 7(5)?

(1) Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases. OJ L 77,
27.3.1996, p. 20.

Action brought on 4 June 2002 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-210/02)

(2002/C 180/24)

(a)

does ‘substantial’ mean something more than ‘insig-
nificant’ and, if so, what?

(b) does ‘insubstantial’ part simply mean that it is not

‘substantial’?

An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 4 June 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Thomas Cusack,
acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

27.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 180/15

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) declare that by failing to adopt for Gibraltar all the laws,
regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Council Directive 97/43/Euratom (1) of
30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals against
the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical
exposure, and repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom, or in
any event by failing to communicate them to the
Commission, the United Kingdom has failed fully to fulfil
its obligations under that Directive.

(2) order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

1. Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the
processing of personal data and the protection of privacy
in the telecommunications sector (1), the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
directive;

2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to Article 192(1) of the Treaty, Member States shall
take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
Community.

The obligation on the part of the United Kingdom to take
measures in order to comply with the directive is not disputed.

Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission
of
the provisions adopted to comply with the directive
concerned with regard to Gibraltar, and since the Commission
is in possession of no other information enabling it to conclude
that the United Kingdom has adopted the necessary provisions,
it is compelled to assume that the United Kingdom has not yet
adopted such provisions and has thus failed to fulfil
its
obligations under the directive.

(1) JO L 180 of 9.7.1997, p. 22.

Action brought on 4 June 2002 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-211/02)

(2002/C 180/25)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 4 June 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by C. Schmidt, acting as Agent,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The period prescribed for transposition expired on 24 October
1998 and 24 October 2000 (as regards Article 5 of the
directive), respectively.

(1) OJ L 24 of 30.1.1998, p. 1.

Action brought on 5 June 2002 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Republic of Austria

(Case C-212/02)

(2002/C 180/26)

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 June
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Michel Nolin, of
the Commission’s Legal
Service, acting as Agent, assisted by Rainer Roniger, Rechtsan-
walt, of Haarmann and Hemmelrath, Brussels, having an
address for service at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of
the Commission’s Legal Service, Centre Wagner C 254.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

Rule that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the remedial Directives 89/665/EEC (1)
and 92/13/EEC (2),
in particular the obligations under
Articles 2(1)(a) and (b) thereof, since the Land procure-
ment laws of the Länder of Salzburg, Steiermark, Niederös-
terreich and Kärnten do not ensure in all cases that the
award decision is open to review in a procedure whereby
an unsuccessful tenderer can have that decision set aside;