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 (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)
Date: 2002-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, approximation of laws, cosmetic product, interpretation of the law, labelling, marketing standard

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.

21.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 323/21

2. Article 6(3) of Directive 76/768 as amended by Directive 93/
35 precludes national legislation which authorises the use of
information as referred to in Question 1 only on condition that
prior authorisation is granted by the competent Minister.

( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 14 November 2002

in Case C-112/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Vestre Landsret): SPKR 4 nr. 3482 ApS v
Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattestyrelsen, Aktieselskab-
et af 11/9 1996, Arden Transport & Spedition ved Søren
Lauritsen og Lene Lauritsen I/S (ATS) (1)

(Regulations (EEC) Nos 2913/92 and 2454/93 — External
Community transit — Offence or irregularity — Recovery
of a customs debt — Conditions)

(2002/C 323/27)

Customs Code, read in conjunction with Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
Customs Code, should be interpreted as meaning that a customs debt
arising by reason of an offence or irregularity committed in connection
with a consignment placed under the external Community transit
procedure can be recovered from the principal by the office of departure
even if it did not notify the principal before the end of the 11th
month following the date of registration of the Community transit
declaration that the consignment had not been presented at the office
of destination and that the place of the offence or irregularity could
not be established. The same applies if the office of departure did not
follow an administrative procedure for the transmission of infor-
mation, such as the early warning system, or if the failure to comply
with the time-limit was due to error or negligence on the part of that
office.

(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 7 November 2002

(Language of the case: Danish)

in Case C-184/01 P: Peter Hirschfeldt (1)

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

(Appeal — Officials — Internal competition — Cancellation
— Transfer — Promotion — Article 8 of the Staff Regu-
lations)

In Case C-112/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between SPKR 4
nr. 3482 ApS and Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattestyrelsen,
Aktieselskabet af 11/9 1996, Arden Transport & Spedition
ved Søren Lauritsen og Lene Lauritsen I/S (ATS), on the
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
(OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), and Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ
1993 L 253, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,
V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 November 2002, in
which it has ruled:

Article 379(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of
2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community

(2002/C 323/28)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-184/01 P, Peter Hirschfeldt (Agents: J.-N. Louis and
V. Peere): Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of
13 February 2001 in Case T-166/00 Hirschfeldt v EEA [2001]
ECR-SC I-A-41 and II-157, seeking to have that judgment set
aside and the claims at first instance allowed, the other party
to the proceedings being: European Environment Agency,
represented by J.-L. Salazar and J. Rivière, acting as Agents,
assisted by D. Waelbroeck, avocat, with an address for service
in Luxembourg, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: