Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 May 2003 in Case C-438/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Hamm): Deutscher Handballbund eV v Maros Kolpak (External relations — Association Agreement between the Communities and Slovakia — Article 38(1) — Free movement of workers — Principle of non-discrimination — Handball — Limitation on the number of professional players having the nationality of non-member countries who may play on a team in the league of a sports federation)
Date: 2003-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Slovakia, association agreement (EU), equal treatment, free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, professional sport

21.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 8 May 2003

in Case C-438/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgericht Hamm): Deutscher Handballbund
eV v Maros Kolpak (1)

(External relations — Association Agreement between the
Communities and Slovakia — Article 38(1) — Free move-
ment of workers — Principle of non-discrimination —
Handball — Limitation on the number of professional
players having the nationality of non-member countries who
may play on a team in the league of a sports federation)

(2003/C 146/07)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-438/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Oberlandesgericht Hamm (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Deutscher Handballbund eV and Maros Kolpak, on the
interpretation of Article 38(1) of
the Europe Agreement
establishing an association between the European Communi-
ties and their Member States, of the one part, and the Slovak
Republic, of
the
Communities by Decision 94/909/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of the
Council and the Commission of 19 December 1994 (OJ 1994
(Fifth Chamber), composed of:
L 359, p. 1),
D. A. O. Edward, acting for the President of the Chamber,
A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas,
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
8 May 2003, in which it has ruled:

the other part, approved on behalf of

the Court

The first indent of Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement establishing
an association between the European Communities and their Member
States, of the one part, and the Slovak Republic, of the other part,
signed in Luxembourg on 4 October 1993 and approved on behalf
of the Communities by Decision 94/909/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of
the Council and the Commission of 19 December 1994, must be
construed as precluding the application to a professional sportsman
of Slovak nationality, who is lawfully employed by a club established
in a Member State, of a rule drawn up by a sports federation in that
State under which clubs are authorised to field, during league or cup
matches, only a limited number of players from non-member
countries that are not parties to the Agreement on the European
Economic Area.

(Sixth Chamber)

of 8 May 2003

in Case C-15/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Regeringsrätten ): Paranova Läkemedel AB and Others
v Läkemedelsverket (1)

(Interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC —
Medicinal products — Withdrawal of parallel import licence
in consequence of waiver of the marketing authorisation for
the medicinal product of reference by the holder of that
authorisation)

(2003/C 146/08)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

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

In Case C-15/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Regeringsträtten (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Paranova
Läkemedel AB, Farmagon A/S, Medartuum AB, Net Pharma
KG AB, Orifarm AB, Trans Euro Medical AB, Cross Pharma
AB, MedImport Scandinavia AB and Läkemedelsverket on the
interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC, the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric
and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it has ruled:

Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC preclude national legislation under
which the withdrawal, at the request of its holder, of the marketing
authorisation of reference of
itself entails the withdrawal of the
parallel import licence granted for the medicinal product in question.
However, those provisions do not preclude restrictions on parallel
imports of the medicinal product in question if there is in fact a risk
to the health of humans as a result of the continued existence of that
medicinal product on the market of the importing Member State.

( 1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.

(1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.