Case C-11/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State, Afdeling Administratie by order of that Court of 9 December 2002 in the case of NV Boss Pharma against Belgian State, represented by the Minister for Economic Affairs
Date: 2003-03-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: decision-making, disclosure of information, health insurance, interpretation of the law, marketing, medicinal product, pharmaceutical legislation

8.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/15

Action brought on 10 January 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy
of Luxembourg

(Case C-9/03)

(2003/C 55/25)

An action against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 10 January 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by D. Martin and M. França, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions
for the protection of consumers’ interests (1), the Grand-
Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive;

— Order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition laid down in Article 8 of the
directive expired on 1 January 2001.

( 1) OJ 1998 L 166, p. 51.

products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of
national health insurance systems, under which a decision of
the competent national authority refusing permission to
market a medicinal product at the price proposed by the
applicant must contain a statement of reasons ‘based on
objective and verifiable criteria’, mean that the competent
authority under domestic Belgian legislation must lay down in
advance by way of a generally applicable provision the criteria
to be taken into consideration by the authority ruling on the
individual application, or is the decision-making authority
permitted to state in each individual decision the objective and
verifiable criteria on which it based its refusal, in that case, to
grant the application, or is it sufficient for the authority to
provide a formal statement of the reasons for its individual
decision by citing actual evidence from the file and for the
courts then to review whether that evidence constitutes an
objective and verifiable criterion?

(1) OJ L 40 of 11.02.1989, p. 8.

Action brought on 14 January 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
Austria

(Case C-15/03)

(2003/C 55/27)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van
State, Afdeling Administratie by order of that Court of
9 December 2002 in the case of NV Boss Pharma against
Belgian State, represented by the Minister for Economic
Affairs

(Case C-11/03)

(2003/C 55/26)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Raad van State,
Afdeling Administratie (Council of State, Administrative Div-
ision) of 9 December 2002, received at the Court Registry on
13 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of NV
Boss Pharma against Belgian State, represented by the Minister
for Economic Affairs on the following question:

On a proper interpretation, does Article 2(2) of Council
Directive 89/105/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 relating to the
transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 14 January 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities,
legal
adviser of the European Commission and Minas Konstantinidis,
of its legal service, with an address for service at the office of
Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the Commission’s legal service,
Wagner Centre C 254, Luxembourg-Kirchberg.

represented by Dr Jürgen Grunwald,

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that the Republic of Austria has infringed its
obligations under Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/
439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (1)
by failing to take the legal and practical measures
necessary to ensure that priority is given to the treatment
by way of regeneration of waste oils, so long as that is
not precluded by technical, financial and organisational
constraints.

2. Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.