Case C-50/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Rostock by order of that Court of 5 February 2003 in the procurement review procedure 1. Simrad GmbH & Co. KG, 2. Kongsberg Simrad AS against Ministry for Education, Science and Culture Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Date: 2003-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, invitation to tender, supplies contract, trade agreement

10.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/7

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 20 March 2003

in Case C-143/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild
fauna and flora)

(2003/C 112/12)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-143/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
(Agents: U. Leanza and M. Fiorilli): Application for a declar-
ation that, in adopting legislation transposing Council Direc-
tive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7),
which:

— excludes from the scope of the rules on the assessment of
the implications for the environment projects other
than those listed in the Italian legislation implementing
directives on environmental impact assessment that are
likely to have a significant effect on sites of Community
importance,

— fails to impose upon the competent authorities of the
Member State any obligation to take appropriate steps in
respect of special protection areas to avoid the deterio-
ration of natural habitats and of the habitats of species or
disturbance of the species for which the areas were
designated,
in so far as such disturbance could be
significant in relation to the objectives of Directive 92/
43,

— fails to provide that the conservation measures referred
to in Article 6(2) of that directive apply to the sites
referred to in Article 5(1) of that directive,

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 5, 6 and 7 of that directive, the Court (Third Chamber),
composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 20 March 2003, in which it:

1. Declares that,

in adopting a measure transposing Council
Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, which:

— excludes from the scope of the rules on the assessment of
the implications for the environment projects other than
those listed in the Italian legislation implementing direc-
tives on environmental impact assessment that are likely
to have a significant effect on sites of Community
importance,

— fails to impose upon the competent authorities of the
Member State any obligation to take appropriate steps in
respect of special protection areas to avoid the deterioration
of natural habitats and of the habitats of species or
the species for which the areas were
disturbance of
designated,
in so far as such disturbance could be
significant in relation to the objectives of Directive 92/
43,

— fails to provide that the conservation measures referred to
in Article 6(2) of that directive apply to the sites referred
to in Article 5(1) of that directive,

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 5, 6 and 7 of that directive;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesger-
icht Rostock by order of that Court of 5 February 2003 in
the procurement review procedure 1. Simrad GmbH &
Co. KG, 2. Kongsberg Simrad AS against Ministry for
Education, Science and Culture Mecklenburg-Vorpom-
mern

(Case C-50/03)

(2003/C 112/13)

Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
Rostock (Higher Regional Court, Rostock) of 5 February 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 10 February 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the procurement review procedure
1. Simrad GmbH & Co. KG, 2. Kongsberg Simrad AS against
Ministry for Education, Science and Culture Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern on the following questions:

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?