Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 March 2003 in Case C-6/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent effect — Indication of provenance — Regional labels)
Date: 2003-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, designation of origin, foodstuff, free movement of goods

C 101/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2003

the consequences of such non-registration do not adversely affect in
any other way the protection which that directive confers on
commercial agents in their relations with their principals.

( 1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 6 March 2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 6 March 2003

in Case C-6/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v French Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free
movement of goods — Measures having equivalent effect —
Indication of provenance — Regional labels)

(2003/C 101/17)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-6/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: H. van Lier and J. Adda) v French Republic (Agents:
G. de Bergues and A. Colomb): Application for a declaration
that, by maintaining the national legal protection afforded to
the name ‘Salaisons d’Auvergne’ and to the regional labels
‘Savoie’, ‘Franche-Comté’, ‘Corse’, ‘Midi-Pyrénées’, ‘Normandie’,
‘Nord-Pas-de-Calais’, ‘Ardennes de France’, ‘Limousin’, ‘Langue-
doc-Roussillon’ and ‘Lorraine’, the French Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC, the Court (Third
Chamber), composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:

1. Declares that, by maintaining the national legal protection
afforded to the name ‘Salaisons d’Auvergne’ and to the regional
labels ‘Savoie’, ‘Franche-Comté’, ‘Corse’, ‘Midi-Pyrénées’, ‘Nor-
mandie’, ‘Nord-Pas-de-Calais’, ‘Ardennes de France’, ‘Limou-
sin’, ‘Languedoc-Roussillon’ and ‘Lorraine’, the French Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.

in Case C-211/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
transpose Directive 97/66/EC within the prescribed periods)

(2003/C 101/18)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-211/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: C. Schmidt) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:
N. Mackel): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
adopt
necessary to comply with Directive 97/66/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concern-
ing the processing of personal data and the protection of
privacy in the telecommunications sector (OJ 1998 L 24, p. 1),
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
its
obligations under that directive, the Court (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola,
Judges;
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing, within the prescribed periods, to adopt
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the
processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the
telecommunications sector, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.