Case C-239/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van Koophandel, Hasselt, by order of that Court of 28 June 2002 in the case of Douwe Egberts NV against 1. Westrom Pharma NV and 2. Souranis Christophe and in the case of NV Douwe Egberts against BVBA Fics-World
Date: 2002-08-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, coffee, foodstuff, interpretation of the law, labelling, product designation, sale

C 202/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.8.2002

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep by order of 12 June 2002 in the case of J. Slob
v Productschap Zuivel

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
hof by order of that Court of 7 May 2002 in the case of
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen against Kazimieras Viluck-
as

(Case C-236/02)

(2002/C 202/15)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 12 June 2002 by the
College van Beroep, which was received at the Court Registry
on 27 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of J. Slob
v Productschap Zuivel on the following question:

that

Can it be inferred from Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EEC)
No 536/93 (1)
the producer is obliged to maintain
accounts recording among other things, the availability, pro-
duction, storage, use, processing and destruction of milk and/
or milk products on his holding, such ‘stock accounts’ also
being required to contain declarations of the quantity per
month and per product of the milk and/or milk products sold,
or does that provision only lay down an obligation to record
those data as to sales?

(1) OJ 1993 L 57, p. 12.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesge-
richtshof by order of that Court of 2 May 2002 in the case
of Freiburger Kommunalbauten GmbH Baugesellschaft &
Co. KG against Ulrike Hofstetter and Ludger Hofstetter

(Case C-237/02)

(2002/C 202/16)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 2 May 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 27 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Freiburger Kommunalbauten GmbH Baugesellschaft & Co.
KG against Ulrike Hofstetter and Ludger Hofstetter on the
following question:

Is a term, contained in a seller’s standard business conditions,
which provides that the purchaser of a building which is to be
constructed is to pay the total price for that building,
irrespective of whether there has been any progress in the
construction, provided that the seller has previously provided
him with a guarantee from a credit institution securing any
monetary claims the purchaser may have in respect of defective
performance or non-performance of
to be
regarded as unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of
Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair
terms in consumer contracts?

the contract,

(1) OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29.

(Case C-238/02)

(2002/C 202/17)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the Bundesfinanzhof
European Communities by order of
(Federal Finance Court) of 7 May 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 28 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen against Kazimieras Viluckas
on the following questions:

1.

Is Article 4(19) of the Customs Code to be interpreted as
meaning that the notification to the customs authorities
of the arrival at a particular place of goods introduced into
the Community customs territory must refer expressly
to goods which are hidden or concealed in secret
compartments?

2.

If Question 1 is answered affirmatively:

Is Article 40 of the Customs Code to be interpreted as
meaning that such notification must also be made by the
driver of a lorry, or a co-driver also entitled to drive it,
who was not aware and should not have been aware of
the goods hidden or concealed in the lorry?

3.

If Question 2 is answered affirmatively:

Is the identity of the person who actually gave the
(incomplete) notification a material factor in determining
the customs debtor under the first indent of Article 202(3)
of the Customs Code?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van
Koophandel, Hasselt, by order of that Court of 28 June
2002 in the case of Douwe Egberts NV against 1. Westrom
Pharma NV and 2. Souranis Christophe and in the case of
NV Douwe Egberts against BVBA Fics-World

(Case C-239/02)

(2002/C 202/18)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the Rechtbank van
European Communities by order of
Koophandel (Commercial Court), Hasselt, of 28 June 2002,
received at
for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Douwe Egberts NV against
1. Westrom Pharma NV and 2. Souranis Christophe and in the
case of NV Douwe Egberts against BVBA Fics-World on the
following questions:

the Court Registry on 1st

July 2002,

24.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 202/13

A.1. Must Article 2 of Directive 1999/4/EC (1) relating to
coffee extracts and chicory extracts be interpreted as
meaning that exclusively the product names listed in the
Annex to that directive may be used for the products
referred to in that Annex and that other names may not
be used alongside those products names (e.g. an invented
or trade name) or must Article 2 be interpreted as
meaning that the product names listed in the Annex may
be used only for the products referred to in that annex
but that, alongside those product names, other names
may also be used for those products (e.g. an invented or
trade name)?

A.2. If the Court of Justice of the European Communities
considers that Article 2 of Directive 1999/4/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 22 February
1999 relating to coffee extracts and chicory extracts must
be interpreted as meaning that exclusively the product
names listed in the Annex to that directive may be used
for the products referred to in that Annex and that other
names may not be used alongside those product names
(e.g. an invented or trade name), does it not then follow
that this directive conflicts with Article 28 of the EC
Treaty, which prohibits quantitative restrictions on
imports and all measures having equivalent effect between
Member States of the European Community, because the
directive, so interpreted, excludes, as regards products
falling within its definition of extracts of coffee:

B.2. Must Article 18(2) of Directive 2000/13/EC be interpreted
as meaning that ‘protection of public health’ must be
understood to include non-harmonised national pro-
visions on the labelling and presentation of foodstuffs
and on advertising for them which prohibit certain
statements such as ‘references to slimming’ and ‘references
to medical recommendations, attestations, quotations or
statements of approval’?

C. Must Article 28 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as
meaning that national provisions on the labelling and
presentation of foodstuffs and on advertising for them
which are not harmonised at European level and which
deviate from Directive 2000/13/EC inasmuch as they
prohibit certain statements in the labelling and/or presen-
tation of foodstuffs and/or advertising for them, such
as ‘references to slimming’ and ‘references to medical
recommendations, attestations, quotations or statements
of approval’, must be regarded as measures having
equivalent effect and/or quantitative restrictions on
imports between Member States of the European Com-
munity, inasmuch as those national provisions:

— impose an additional burden upon the import of
foodstuffs in the bringing of those products into line
with the national legislation and in so doing hinder
trade between Member States

— the use of names other than ‘coffee extract’, or

and

‘instant coffee’, such as the name ‘coffee’;

— do not apply to all participants concerned in the
market who pursue their activities in the national
territory inasmuch as there are products of a wholly
similar nature (e.g. cosmetic products) to which
those provisions do not apply and to which no other
equivalent provision applies, and that consequently
those provisions may not be applied by the national
court?

(1) Directive 1999/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 22 February 1999 relating to coffee extracts and
chicory extracts (OJ L 66 of 13.3.1999, p. 26).

(2) Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of
the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and
advertising of foodstuffs (OJ L 109 of 6.5.2000, p. 29).

— in so doing, reserves use of the name ‘coffee’ for one
single form of ‘coffee’, namely the coffee bean;

— and thereby artificially protects the coffee market
from competing products consisting of forms of
coffee other than coffee beans, such as inter alia
coffee extracts and instant coffee?

B.1. Must Article 18(1) and Article 18(2) of Directive 2000/
13/EC (2) be interpreted as meaning that non-harmonised
national provisions on the labelling and presentation of
foodstuffs and on advertising for them which prohibit
certain statements such as ‘references to slimming’ and
‘references to medical recommendations, attestations,
quotations or statements of approval’ in the labelling and/
or presentation of foodstuffs and/or advertising for them,
even though such statements are not prohibited by the
Directive, constitute infringements of the Directive in
view of the fact that the eighth recital of the Directive
states that the most appropriate labelling is the one which
creates fewest obstacles to free trade and that therefore
these national provisions cannot be applied?