Cases C-242/02 and C-243/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that Court of 11 February 2002 in the appeal by Dr Manfred Hückel
Date: 2002-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, consumer information, consumer protection, foodstuff, interpretation of the law, labelling, packaging

C 247/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.10.2002

ORDER OF THE COURT

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Sixth Chamber)

of 21 March 2002

in Case C-430/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Monika
Herbstrith v Republic of Austria (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)

(2002/C 247/02)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

(Austria),

In Case C-430/01: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Vienna
Higher Civil Court)
for a preliminary ruling in
proceedings pending before that court between Monika
Herbstrith and the Republic of Austria on whether the failure
to appoint to a post a candidate with the required professional
qualifications infringes a provision of Community law, and on
the conditions under which a Member State may incur liability
for damage suffered by individuals as a result of infringements
of Community law — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, R. Schintgen
(Rapporteur), V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order
on 21 March 2002, in which it ruled:

The request
Justice of
Zivilrechtssachen Wien, by decision of 12 October 2001,
inadmissible.

for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court of
the European Communities by the Landesgericht für
is

( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

Application brought on 22 August 2002 by Antippas for
leave to attach assets held by the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case C-1/02 SA)

(2002/C 247/03)

An application for leave to attach assets held by the Com-
mission of the European Communities was brought before the
the European Communities on on
Court of
22 August 2002 by Antippas, represented by Mario Spandre,
lawyer.

Justice of

— lift the immunity enjoyed by the Commission since the
requested attachment does not in any way interfere with
the independence and functioning of the Communities;

— declare that the Commission’s accounting officer incor-
rectly declared that the Commission has no existing or
contingent debts towards the Democratic Republic of the
Congo or the Banque Nationale du Congo.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that Court of
11 February 2002 in the appeal by Dr Manfred Hückel

(Cases C-242/02 and C-243/02)

(2002/C 247/04)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat Salzburg (Independent Administrative Chamber for
Salzburg) of 11 February 2002, received at the Court Registry
on 3 July 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the appeal by
Dr Manfred Hückel on the following questions:

1. Does Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of
18 December 1978 (1) on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to
the ultimate consumer (now consolidated in European
Parliament
and Council Directive 2000/13/EC of
20 March 2000 — OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29), under which
— subject to Community provisions applicable to natural
mineral waters and to foodstuffs for particular nutritional
uses — the labelling and methods used may not attribute
to any foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or
curing a human disease, or suggest that it possesses such
properties, preclude national legislation which makes it
an offence when marketing foodstuffs:

(a)

to refer to physiological or pharmacological effects,
in particular those which preserve youthfulness,
inhibit signs of ageing, promote slimming or main-
tain health, or to create the impression of any such
effect;

(b)

to refer to case-histories, recommendations made by
doctors or medical experts’ reports;

12.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 247/3

(c)

to use health-related, pictorial or stylised represen-
tations of organs of the human body, pictures
of members of the health-care professions or of
sanatoria or other pictures or illustrations referring
to health-care activities?

3.

If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative:

How, and by reference to what parameters,
authorised toll
motorway to be calculated in each individual case?

is the
for a single journey along the whole

2. Do Directive 79/112/EEC or Articles 28 and 30 EC
preclude a national provision which, on the placing into
circulation of foodstuffs, permits health-related infor-
mation such as that described in Question (1) to be
affixed thereto only after prior authorisation by the
federal minister, whereby a condition of
competent
authorisation is that the health-related information is
consistent with protecting the consumer from being
misled?

( 1) OJ L 33, p. 1.

4. Only if

the answers to questions 1 and 2 are in
the affirmative and are accompanied, as requested in
question 3, by an explanation of the method of calcu-
lation to be employed:

Is the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-21/94
Parliament v Council (3), in which it was held that the
effects of Directive 93/89/EEC, which was annulled by
that judgment, were to be preserved until the Council had
adopted a new directive, to be interpreted as meaning
that the effects are to be preserved until the Member
States have transposed the new directive or, as the case
may be, until the time-limit for transposition has expired?

5. Only if the answer to question 4 is in the negative:

In respect of the period from 17 June 1999 to 1 July
2000, are the Member States under an obligation to have
regard to the new directive, that is to say, does it have
advance effects which must be observed?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof of the Republic of Austria by order of that
Court of 25 June 2002 in the case of Stuij en de Man B. V.
against Republic of Austria

(1) OJ L 279 [1993], p. 32.
(2) OJ L 187 [1999], p. 42.
(3) ECR I-1827 [1995].

(Case C-257/02)

(2002/C 247/05)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
(Supreme Court) of the Republic of Austria of 25 June 2002,
received at
for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Stuij en de Man B. V. against
Republic of Austria on the following questions:

the Court Registry on 15 July 2002,

1. Are Article 7(b) and (h) of Directive 93/89/EEC (1) and
Article 7(4) and (9) of Directive 1999/62/EC (2) intended
to confer on all transport undertakings the right, in return
for payment of a road user charge which complies with
those directives and is thus reasonable,
to conduct
journeys on stretches of motorway for which a toll is
levied on vehicles with more than three axles used for the
commercial carriage of goods?

2.

If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:

Do Article 7(b) and (h) of Directive 93/89/EEC and
Article 7(4) and (9) of Directive 1999/62/EC have direct
effect according to the case-law of the Court of Justice,
such that, if the directives have not been transposed, or
have been transposed incorrectly, into Austrian law they
may be relied on in calculating a toll that complies with
the directives for vehicles with more than three axles used
for the commercial carriage of goods along the whole of
the Austrian Brenner motorway?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rheinland-Pfalz
Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of 3 July
2002 in the case of EU-WOOD-Trading GmbH against
Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz
mbH

(Case C-277/02)

(2002/C 247/06)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Rheinland-Pfalz Ober-
verwaltungsgericht (Rhineland-Palatinate Higher Administrat-
ive Court) of 3 July 2002, received at the Court Registry on
29 July 2002,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of
EU-WOOD-Trading GmbH against Sonderabfall-Management-
Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH on the following questions:

1. Under the first

indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
supervision and control of shipments of waste within,
into and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30,
p. 1), can an objection to the shipment of waste for
recovery be raised on the ground that the planned
recovery contravenes the requirement arising from the
first paragraph of Article 4 of Council Directive 75/442/
EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 74) for
waste to be recovered in a manner which is compatible
with health and environmental imperatives?