Case C-54/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien by order of that Court of 29 January 2003 in the case of Austroplant-Arzneimittel GesmbH against Austrian Republic
Date: 2003-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fixing of prices, health insurance, interpretation of the law, medicinal product, national implementing measure, pharmaceutical legislation

C 112/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.5.2003

Does an agreement
to amend an existing public supply
contract, to the effect that different goods are to be supplied
from those originally agreed, constitute a public supply
contract for the purposes of Article 1(a) of Council Directive
93/36/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for
the award of public supply contracts (‘Directive 93/36’) in
respect of which an invitation to tender must be issued where:

1.

2.

the value of the goods to which the amendment relates
exceeds
referred to in
amount
the de minimis
Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 93/36 and

as regards the goods affected by the amendment, the
amendment changes both the supplier and, in a material
way, the specification of those goods?

( 1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
Löbau by order of that Court of 21 October 2002 in the
criminal proceedings against Nicoleta Maria Georgescu

(Case C-51/03)

(2003/C 112/14)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht Löbau
(Local Court, Löbau) of 21 October 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 10 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling
in the criminal proceedings against Nicoleta Maria Georgescu
on the following question on the following point of interpret-
ation of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March
2001 (1):

Must Article 1(2) in conjunction with Article 8(2) and Annex II
of the above regulation be interpreted as meaning that as from
the entry into force of that regulation Romanian nationals
now only for a specified time require a visa for entry and stay
in Member States of the European Community for a period
not exceeding three months?

( 1) OJ L 81 of 21.3.2001, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
für Zivilrechtssachen Wien by order of that Court of
29 January 2003 in the case of Austroplant-Arzneimittel
GesmbH against Austrian Republic

(Case C-54/03)

(2003/C 112/15)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht für
Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Vienna Regional Civil Court) of
29 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on 11 February
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Austroplant-
Arzneimittel GesmbH against Austrian Republic on the follow-
ing questions:

1.

Is Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1998
relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
prices of medicinal products for human use and their
inclusion in the scope of national health insurance
systems (OJ 1989 L 40, 8), apart from the remedy already
criticised in the Court’s judgment of 27 November 2001
in Case C-424/99 (1), to be interpreted as meaning that
the national provisions set out below are incompatible
therewith?

The national
implementing provisions concerned are
Paragraph 31(3)(12) ASVG in the version published in
BGBl I 99/2001 and the Procedure for the compilation
of
the register of medicinal products under Para-
graph 31(3)(12) ASVG (VOHMV), Soziale Sicherheit 11/
1998, Amtliche Verlautbarung No 104/1998.

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Is Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1998
relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
prices of medicinal products for human use and their
inclusion in the scope of national health insurance
systems so precise, clear and definite that the national
legislator has no scope for discretion when transposing it
into national law?

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:

Is Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1998
relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
prices of medicinal products for human use and their
inclusion in the scope of national health insurance
systems intended to confer a direct right on the applicant
in the proceedings in the main case in this instance?

10.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/9

4.

If Question 2 is answered in the negative:

the question of whether

Does the content of the reference for a preliminary ruling,
together with the supporting documents, afford the
Court, in the light of its judgment in Case C-392/93
British Telecommunications [1996] (2), sufficient infor-
mation to answer
the
implementing provisions described fall within the scope
for discretion afforded to the national legislator under
Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1998
relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
prices of medicinal products for human use and their
inclusion in the scope of national health insurance
systems or does the Court leave it to the referring court
to answer this question?

( 1) European Court Reports 2001 p. I-09285.
( 2) European Court Reports 1996 p. I-01631.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeits-
gericht by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the
case of Wolff & Müller GmbH & Co.KG against José Filipe
Pereira Félix

(Case C-60/03)

(2003/C 112/16)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
(Federal Labour Court) of 6 November 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 14 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Wolff & Müller GmbH & Co.KG against José
Filipe Pereira Félix on the following question:

Does Article 49 EC (formerly Article 59 of the EC Treaty)
preclude a national system whereby, when subcontracting the
conduct of building work to another undertaking, a building
contractor becomes liable, in the same way as a guarantor who
has waived benefit of execution, for the obligation on that
undertaking or that undertaking’s subcontractors to pay the
minimum wage to a worker or to pay contributions to a
communal scheme for parties to a collective agreement where
the minimum wage means the sum payable to the worker
after tax, social security contributions, payments towards the
promotion of employment or other such social
insurance
payments have been deducted (net pay), if the safeguarding of
workers’ pay is not the primary objective of the legislation or
is merely a subsidiary objective?

Action brought on 26 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-83/03)

(2003/C 112/17)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 February
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Antonio Aresu and Roberto Amorosi, acting as
Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

a)

its
find that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
obligations under Article 4(2) of Council Directive 85/
337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment in as much as it failed properly to determine
whether a project for the construction of a tourist port at
Fassacesia (Chieti) — a project covered by Annex II to the
directive — warranted the commencement of a procedure
to assess its impact on the environment, and

b)

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Italian authorities have given the Commission no expla-
nation of the reasons for which they took the view that there
impact assessment, in
was no need for an environmental
accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC, to be
carried out in relation to a project for the construction of a
tourist port in Fassacesia (Chieti).

It is therefore unclear whether the characteristics of the project
were considered with reference to its possible impact on fauna
and flora and on the landscape. The fact that the area in
question has not been proposed as a Site of Community
Importance is all the more reason why the project’s impact on
fauna and flora and on the landscape should have been taken
into consideration. Moreover, the fact that this point was
considered only after building permission had already been
granted is further indication that the procedure followed was
incoherent, to say the least.