Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 May 2003 in Case C-103/01: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/686/EEC — Scope — Derogations — Personal protective equipment designed and manufactured specifically for use by the armed forces or in the maintenance of law and order)
Date: 2003-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Commission, Germany, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, fire protection, protective equipment

19.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/5

from being regarded by the national court as capable of being
relied on against operators who carried on the activity of grating
and packaging the product in the period prior to the entry into
force of Regulation No 1107/96, should that court consider
that during that period the Decree of 4 November 1991 was
applicable by virtue of the aforesaid Convention between the
French Republic and the Italian Republic and capable of being
relied on against those concerned by virtue of the national rules
on publicity.

( 1) OJ C 469 of 10.2.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 22 May 2003

in Case C-18/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Kilpailuneuvosto): Arkkitehtuuritoimisto Riitta
Korhonen Oy, Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti Toivanen Oy,
Rakennuttajatoimisto Vilho Tervomaa v Varkauden Taito-
talo Oy (1)

(Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Defi-
nition of ‘contracting authoritye’ — Body governed by public
law — Company set up by a regional or local authority to
promote the development of industrial or commercial activi-
ties on the territory of that authority)

(2003/C 171/05)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth
Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
22 May 2003, in which it has ruled:

1. A limited company established, owned and managed by a
regional or local authority meets a need in the general interest,
within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 1(b)
of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
the coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts, where it acquires services with a view to promoting
the development of industrial or commercial activities on the
territory of that
regional or local authority. To determine
whether that need has no industrial or commercial character,
the national court must assess the circumstances which prevailed
when that company was set up and the conditions in which it
carries on its activity, taking account in particular of the fact
that it does not aim primarily at making a profit, the fact that
it does not bear the risks associated with the activity, and any
public financing of the activity in question.

2.

The fact that the premises to be constructed are leased only to a
single undertaking is not capable of calling into question the
lessor’s status of a body governed by public law, where it is
shown that the lessor meets a need in the general interest not
having an industrial or commercial character.

(1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 22 May 2003

in Case C-103/01: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
89/686/EEC — Scope — Derogations — Personal protective
equipment designed and manufactured specifically for use
by the armed forces or in the maintenance of law and order)

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

(2003/C 171/06)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-18/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Kilpailuneuvosto (Finland) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Arkkitehtu-
uritoimisto Riitta Korhonen Oy, Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti
Toivanen Oy, Rakennuttajatoimisto Vilho Tervomaa and Var-
kauden Taitotalo Oy, on the interpretation of Article 1(b) of
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President

In Case C-103/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: J. Shieferer) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
W.-D. Plessing, B. Muttelsee-Schön and H.-W. Rengeling)
supported by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and
D. Colas): Application for a declaration that, by making, by
means of the legislation of certain Länder, personal protective
equipment for firefighters subject to additional requirements,
although it complies with the requirements of Council Direc-
tive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation

C 171/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2003

of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective
equipment (OJ 1989 L 399, p. 18), and bears the EC marking,
its
the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil
obligations under Articles 1 and 4 of that directive, the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
and A. Rosas,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; H.-A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 22 May 2003, in which it:

requirements despite the fact

1. Declares that by subjecting, by means of the legislation of
certain Länder, personal protection equipment for firefighters to
additional
complies
with the requirements of Council Directive 89/686/EEC of
21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to personal protective equipment and
bears the EC marking, the Federal Republic of Germany has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 4 of that
directive;

that

it

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

3. Orders the French Republic to pay its own costs.

Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma, Salumificio S. Rita SpA and
Asda Stores Ltd, Hygrade Foods Ltd, on the interpretation of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
protection of geographical
indications and designations of
origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208,
p. 1), as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of
accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the
Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994
C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), and of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the
registration of geographical indications and designations of
origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
Regulation No 2081/92 (OJ 1996 L 148, p. 1), the Court,
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puisso-
chet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C. W. A. Timmermans
of Chambers), C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
(Presidents
D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric,
S. von Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber,
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 May 2003, in which
it has ruled:

( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.

1.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on
the protection of geographical indications and designations of
origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended by
the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic
of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden
and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
Union is founded, must be interpreted as not precluding the use
of a protected designation of origin from being subject to the
condition that operations such as the slicing and packaging of
the product take place in the region of production, where such a
condition is laid down in the specification.

2. Where the use of the protected designation of origin ‘Prosciutto
di Parma’ for ham marketed in slices is made subject to the
condition that slicing and packaging operations be carried out
in the region of production, this constitutes a measure having
equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports within
the meaning of Article 29 EC, but may be regarded as justified,
and hence compatible with that provision.

3. However, the condition in question cannot be relied on against
economic operators, as it was not brought to their attention by
adequate publicity in Community legislation.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 20 May 2003

in Case C-108/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the House of Lords): Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma,
Salumificio S. Rita SpA v Asda Stores Ltd, Hygrade Foods
Ltd (1)

(Protected designations of origin — Regulation (EEC)
No 2081/92 — Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 — ‘Prosciutto
di Parma’ — Specification — Requirement for ham to be
sliced and packaged in the region of production — Articles 29
EC and 30 EC — Justification — Whether requirement may
be relied on against third parties — Legal certainty —
Publicity)

(2003/C 171/07)

(Language of the case: English)

(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.

In Case C-108/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the House of Lords (United Kingdom) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between