Case C-444/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Monomeles Protodikio Athinon by order of that Court of 11 July 2002 in the case of Fixtures Marketing Limited against Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosphairou AE
Date: 2003-02-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data protection, database, interpretation of the law, sport, sporting event

C 31/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.2.2003

duces into the Community legal order, be construed as
meaning that the terms ‘biocidal products’ and ‘low-risk
biocidal product’ refer solely to products whose biocidal
function depends on active substances added to those
products by chemical or biological means through pro-
cesses expressly designed to add such substances in order
to confer on those products a biocidal function?

2. Must Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 98/8/EC, in the light of
the general rules which that directive introduces into the
Community legal order, be construed as meaning that the
term ‘basic substance’ refers to substances which are not
added to a product in order to enable it to perform an
intended biocidal function but such a biocidal function is
performed in addition to the function normally perfor-
med by that product during its use (as an example: liquid
for a dishwasher which, by virtue of the addition of a
substance designed to improve its detergent function,
may also have a bactericidal function)?

3. May a piece of red cedar wood, simply by virtue of the
fact that it is marketed as being ‘anti-moth’, be classifiable
as a ‘biocidal product’, as a ‘low-risk biocidal product’ or
as a ‘basic substance’ within the meaning of Directive 98/
8/EC, bearing in mind that: (a) the wood in question has
in no way been treated chemically or biologically; (b) the
substance on which the effects attributed to the wood
may depend is naturally present in the product; (c) the
product is substantially marketed as found in its natural
state?

4. Must Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 98/8/EC be construed as
meaning that it is only if a ‘basic substance’ is included
on the list referred to in Annex IB that that substance
may be exempted from the authorisation and registration
provided for the marketing in the Member States of
products covered by Article 2, with such inclusion on the
list referred to in Annex IB thus acquiring constitutive
effectiveness for all purposes?

5. Must Article 4 of Directive 98/8/EC, by reference to
Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, be construed as meaning that
a product such as that described in Question 3, placed
lawfully on the market in a Member State without any
need for authorisation or registration in that Member
State, may be made subject to authorisation or regis-
tration in another Member State in which it
is sub-
sequently marketed by reason of the fact that the product
in question is not included on the list referred to in
Annex IB to Directive 98/8/EC?

( 1) Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products
on the market (OJ L 123 of 24.04.1998, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Monomeles
Protodikio Athinon by order of that Court of 11 July
2002 in the case of Fixtures Marketing Limited against
Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosphairou AE

(Case C-444/02)

(2003/C 31/17)

Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of
European Communities by order of the Monomeles Protodikio
Athinon (Single-Judge Court of First Instance, Athens) of
11 July 2002, received at the Court Registry on 9 December
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fixtures Marketing
Limited against Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosphai-
rou AE (Football-match-results-forecasting Undertaking) on
the interpretation of Article 7 of Directive 96/9/EC and the sui
generis right thereunder in connection with the following
issues:

1.

2.

the concept of databases and the scope of Directive 96/
9/EC (1) and in particular Article 7 thereof (sui generis
right).

Further to determination of the scope of the directive,
whether the lists of football fixtures enjoy protection as
databases over which there is a sui generis right in favour
of the maker and with what consequences.

3. How exactly the database right is infringed and whether
it is protected in regard to rearrangement of the contents
of the database.

(1) OJ L 77 of 27.3.1996, p. 20.

Appeal brought on 9 December 2002 by Glaverbel against
the judgment delivered on 9 October 2002 by the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in case T-36/01 (1) between Glaverbel and
the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
(Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-445/02 P)

(2003/C 31/18)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 October 2002
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in case T-36/01 between Glaverbel
and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
(Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM), was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 December
2002 by Glaverbel, represented by Susanne Möbus, Attorney
at Law, with an address for service in Luxembourg.