Case C-31/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshofes by order of that Court of 17 December 2002 in the appeal proceedings brought by Pharmacia & Upjohn S.p.A
Date: 2003-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, market approval, marketing, medicinal product, veterinary drug

26.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/17

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-
hofes by order of that Court of 17 December 2002 in the
appeal proceedings brought by Pharmacia & Upjohn S.p.A

it in the fishing years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993,
1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997;

(Case C-31/03)

(2003/C 101/28)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshofes
(Federal Court) of 17 December 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 27 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
appeal proceedings brought by Pharmacia & Upjohn S.p.A on
the interpretation of Article 19(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a
supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products
(OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1; hereinafter ‘the Protection Certificate
Regulation’):

Is the grant of a supplementary protection certificate in a
Member State of the Community on the basis of a medicinal
product for human beings authorised in that Member State
precluded by an authorisation to place the same product on
the market as a veterinary medicinal product granted in
another Member State of the Community before the date
specified in Article 19(1) of the Protection Certificate Regu-
lation, or is the sole determining factor the date on which the
product was authorised in the Community as a medicinal
product for human beings?

— by having failed to ensure compliance with the
Community rules on conservation through adequate
monitoring of
fishing activities and appropriate
inspections of the fishing fleet and of landings and
recording of catches for the fishing years 1990,
1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997;

— by not having temporarily prohibited fishing from
vessels flying the Spanish flag or registered in
Spanish territory when the quotas allocated to
Spain were deemed to be exhausted in the fishing
years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995,
1996 and 1997 and by having finally prohibited it
when the quotas had already been exceeded; and

— by having failed to take legal or administrative action
against the master or other person responsible for
overfishing in the fishing years 1990, 1991, 1992,
1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997;

the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 (1),
Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 (2), Article 1
and Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/
87 (3) and Article 2, Article 21(1) and (2) and Article 31
of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (4);

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Action brought on 4 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Spain

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Case C-42/03)

(2003/C 101/29)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 Febru-
ary 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by T. van Rijn, Legal Adviser, and S. Pardo
Quintillán, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— declare that:

— by having failed to determine the appropriate detail-
ed rules for the use of the fishing quotas allocated to

— Infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/
83, Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92: those
provisions impose a general obligation on Member
States to determine, in accordance with the applicable
Community law, detailed rules for the use of the fishing
quotas allocated to them. The data on overfishing which
are cited in the reasoned opinions sent to Spain give an
overall picture of how often over a period of time and
how significantly the quotas were exceeded (5). They show
that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligation
in accordance with the applicable
to put
Community
effective
measures for utilisation of the fishing quotas allocated to
it for the fishing years 1990 to 1997.

appropriate

legislation,

in place,

and

— Infringement of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/
87 and Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93: proper
management of fishing quotas also calls for appropriate
supervision and monitoring to ensure that restrictions on