Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 October 2002 in Case C-81/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation): Borie Manoux SARL v Directeur de l'Institut national de la propriété industrielle (INPI) (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Wine — Description and presentation of wines — Quality wines produced in specific regions — Brand name printed on label — Restrictions — Articles 11 and 40 of Regulation No 2392/89)
Date: 2002-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, interpretation of the law, location of production, product designation, trade-mark law, wine

21.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 323/19

and J.N. Cuhna Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 24 October 2002, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to specify the circumstances in which
the workers concerned are to be provided with special corrective
the work concerned, the Italian
appliances appropriate for
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(3)
of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the
minimum safety and health requirements for work with display
screen equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning
of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC);

Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President
of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann
and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 November 2002, in
which it:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Glencore Grain Ltd to pay the costs in Case C-24/01 P
and Compagnie Continentale (France) SA to pay the costs in
Case C-25/01 P.

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.

( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 7 November 2002

In Joined Cases C-24/01 P and C-25/01 P: Glencore Grain
Ltd and Compagnie Continentale (France) SA (1)

(Appeal — Emergency aid provided by the Community to
the States of the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender
— Free competition — Hearing of witnesses)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 24 October 2002

in Case C-81/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de cassation): Borie Manoux SARL v Directeur
de l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle (INPI) (1)

(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
Wine — Description and presentation of wines — Quality
wines produced in specific regions — Brand name printed on
label — Restrictions — Articles 11 and 40 of Regulation
No 2392/89)

(2002/C 323/23)

(Language of the case: French)

(2002/C 323/24)

(Language of the case: French)

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

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

In Joined Cases C-24/01 P and C-25/01 P, Glencore Grain Ltd,
formerly Richco Commodities Ltd, established in Hamilton
(Bermudes) (Agents: P. Bos and J. van Zuuren), Compagnie
Continentale (France) SA, established in Labège (France)
(Agents: P. Bos and P. Chabrier): Two Appeals against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Second Chamber) of 8 November 2000 in
Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98
Dreyfus and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-3659,
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties
the European
to the proceedings being: Commission of
Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and T. van Rijn), Louis
Dreyfus & Cie SA, established in Paris (France), the Court (Fifth

In Case C-81/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Borie
Manoux SARL and Directeur de l’Institut national de la
propriété industrielle (INPI), on the interpretation of Article 40
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July 1989
laying down general rules for the description and presentation
of wines and grape musts (OJ 1989 L 232, p. 13), as amended
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3897/91 of 16 December
1991 (OJ 1991 L 368, p. 5), the Court (Second Chamber),
composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
ris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur),
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 24 October 2002, in which it has ruled:

C 323/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.12.2002

Article 40 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July
1989 laying down general rules for the description and presentation
of wines and grape musts, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 3897/91 of 16 December 1991, is to be interpreted as not
prohibiting the use of a trade mark which contains a geographical
reference and is intended for use in connection with the sale of wine
and is likely to give the false impression that the geographical
reference is protected, unless there is a real risk that use of such a
mark will mislead consumers and, as a result, alter their economic
behaviour. It is a matter for the national court to determine whether
or not that is the case.

( 1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 24 October 2002

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Aéroports de Paris to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 24 October 2002

in Case C-99/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Gottfried Linhart v Hans
Biffl (1)

(Approximation of laws — Articles 30 and 36 of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC)
— Directive 76/768/EEC relating to cosmetic products —
Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising —
National legislation laying down restrictions on advertising)

(2002/C 323/26)

(Language of the case: German)

in Case C-82/01 P: Aéroports de Paris v Commission of
the European Communities (1)

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

(Appeal — Competition — Air transport — Airport man-
agement — Abuse of dominant position — Discriminatory
fees)

(2002/C 323/25)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-82/01 P, Aéroports de Paris (Agent: H. Calvet):
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 12 December
2000 in Case T-128/98 Aéroports de Paris v Commission
[2000] ECR II-3929, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: L. Pignataro, assisted by
B. Geneste) and Alpha Flight Services SAS (Agents: L. Marville
and A. Denants), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
(Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October 2002, in which
it:

In Case C-99/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court against
Gottfried Linhart and Hans Biffl, on the interpretation of
Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) and Council Directive 76/768/EEC
of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ 1976 L 262,
p. 169), as amended by Council Directive 93/35/EEC of
14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 151, p. 32), and Council Directive
84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approxi-
mation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ
1984 L 250, p. 17), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet, President of
the Chamber, R. Schintgen,
V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 24 October 2002, in which it has
ruled:

1. Article 6(3) of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July
1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to cosmetic products, as amended by Council Directive
93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, precludes national legislation
which prohibits reference to expert medical opinions in the
marketing of cosmetic products — in particular, the use of the
statement ‘dermatologically tested’ — if that reference does not
include information relating to the contents and outcome of
those assessments.