Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 September 2002 in Case C-255/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trento): Grundig Italiana SpA v Ministero delle Finanze (Internal taxes contrary to Community law — Recovery of sums paid but not due — National legislation retroactively reducing time-limits for bringing proceedings — Compatibility with the principle of effectiveness)
Date: 2002-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, approximation of laws, interpretation of the law, tax collection, tax on consumption

C 274/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.11.2002

3.

If it is demonstrated that there is in fact a risk to public health
arising from the coexistence of two versions of the same
medicinal product on the market in a Member State such a risk
may justify restrictions on the importation of the old version of
the medicinal product in consequence of the withdrawal of the
marketing authorisation of reference by the holder thereof in
relation to that market.

Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972
and Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on
the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables are to
be interpreted as meaning that compliance with the provisions on
quality standards applicable to fruit or vegetables must be capable of
enforcement by means of civil proceedings instituted by a trader
against a competitor.

( 1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.

(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 17 September 2002

in Case C-253/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division):
Antonio Muñoz y Cia SA, Superior Fruiticola SA v Frumar
Ltd, Redbridge Produce Marketing Ltd (1)

(Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 — Quality
standards for varieties of table grapes — Legal obligations
of operators marketing table grapes within the Community
— Right of an operator to seek enforcement of those
obligations in civil proceedings)

(2002/C 274/15)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-253/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil
Division) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Antonio Muñoz y Cia SA, Superior
Fruiticola SA and Frumar Ltd, Redbridge Produce Marketing
Ltd, on the interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of
the Council of 18 May 1972 and Council Regulation (EC)
No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation
of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ, English Special
Edition 1972 (II), p. 437, and OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1 respectively),
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
P. Jann (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, (Presidents
of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen,
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and
C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate Gen-
eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September
2002, in which it has ruled:

(Sixth Chamber)

of 24 September 2002

in Case C-255/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale di Trento): Grundig Italiana SpA v Ministero
delle Finanze (1)

(Internal taxes contrary to Community law — Recovery of
sums paid but not due — National legislation retroactively
reducing time-limits for bringing proceedings — Compati-
bility with the principle of effectiveness)

(2002/C 274/16)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-255/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunale di Trento (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Grundig
Italiana SpA and Ministero delle Finanze, on the interpretation
of the principles of Community law relating to the recovery of
sums paid but not due, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of: F. Macken, President of
the Chamber, C. Gulmann,
J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruíz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 September
2002, in which it has ruled:

9.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 274/11

Community law precludes the retroactive application of a time-limit
that is shorter and, as the case may be, more restrictive for the
claimant than the period for initiating proceedings that was previously
applicable to claims for the recovery of national taxes contrary to
Community law where no adequate transitional period is provided
during which claims relating to sums paid before the entry into force
of the legislation introducing the new time-limit may still be brought
within the old period. Where a limitation period of five years is
replaced with a time-limit of three years, a transitional period of 90
days must be regarded as insufficient and six months must be
regarded as the minimum period required to ensure that the exercise
of rights of recovery is not rendered excessively difficult.

A situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which the
differences identified in the pay conditions of workers of different sex
performing equal work or work of equal value cannot be attributed to
a single source, does not come within the scope of Article 141(1) EC.

(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.

( 1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 17 September 2002

in Case C-334/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Corte suprema di cassazione): Fonderie Officine
Meccaniche Tacconi SpA v Heinrich Wagner Sinto
Maschinenfabrik GmbH (HWS) (1)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) and (3) — Special
jurisdiction — Pre-contractual liability)

of 17 September 2002

in Case C-320/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division):
A.G. Lawrence and Others v Regent Office Care Ltd,
Commercial Catering Group, Mitie Secure Services Ltd (1)

(Principle of equal pay for men and women — Direct
effect — Comparison of the work performed for different
employers)

(2002/C 274/17)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-320/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil
Division) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between A. G. Lawrence and Others and
Regent Office Care Ltd, Commercial Catering Group, Mitie
Secure Services Ltd, on the interpretation of Article 141(1) EC,
the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr
(Presidents of Chambers), D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris,
Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
17 September 2002, in which it has ruled:

(2002/C 274/18)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-334/00: Reference to the Court under the Protocol
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
by the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Fonderie Officine Meccaniche Tacconi SpA and Heinrich
Wagner Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH (HWS), on the interpret-
ation of Article 5(1) and (3) of the abovementioned Convention
of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by
the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 and
— amended version — p. 77), by the Convention of 25 Octo-
ber 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982
L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the
Accession of
the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1), the Court, composed of:
G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, A. La
Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, J. N. Cunha
Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and C. W. A. Timmermans, Judges;
L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 17 September 2002, in which it has
ruled: