Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 2002 in Case C-82/01 P: Aéroports de Paris v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Air transport — Airport management — Abuse of dominant position — Discriminatory fees)
Date: 2002-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), airport, dominant position, provision of services, public institution

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.