Judgment of the Court of 20 May 2003 in CaseC-469/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation): Ravil SARL v Bellon import SARL, Biraghi SpA (Protected designations of origin — Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Regulation (EEC) No 1107/96 — "Grana Padano" freshly grated — Specification — Convention between two Member States — Condition that the cheese is grated and packaged in the region of production — Articles 29 EC and 30 EC — Justification — Whether the condition may be relied on against third parties — Legal certainty— Publicity)
Date: 2003-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, Italy, advertising, designation of origin, hard cheese, interpretation of the law, marketing, packaging, product designation

C 171/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2003

J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, A. La
Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von
Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 20 May 2003, in which it has
ruled:

1. Articles 6(1)(c) and 7(c) and (e) of Directive 95/46/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995
on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
personal data and on the free movement of such data do not
preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main
proceedings, provided that it is shown that the wide disclosure
not merely of the amounts of the annual income above a certain
threshold of persons employed by the bodies subject to control
by the Rechnungshof but also of the names of the recipients of
that income is necessary for and appropriate to the objective of
proper management of public funds pursued by the legislature,
that being for the national courts to ascertain.

2. Articles 6(1)(c) and 7(c) and (e) of Directive 95/46 are directly
applicable, in that they may be relied on by an individual before
the national courts to oust the application of rules of national
law which are contrary to those provisions.

( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.03.2001 and OJ C 173 of 16.06.2001.

in the proceedings pending before that court between Ravil
SARL og Bellon import SARL, Biraghi SpA, on the interpret-
ation of Article 29 EC, the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez
Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen
and C. W. A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gul-
mann (Rapporteur), 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. As regards the period prior to the entry into force 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 Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, Article 29 EC must be
interpreted as not precluding a convention concluded between
two Member States A and B, such as the Convention between
the French Republic and the Italian Republic on the protection
of designations of origin, indications of provenance and names
of certain products, signed in Rome on 28 April 1964, from
making applicable in Member State A national legislation of
Member State B, such as that referred to by the national court,
under which the designation of origin of a cheese, protected in
Member State B, is reserved, for cheese marketed in grated
form, to cheese grated and packaged in the region of production.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

2.

of 20 May 2003

in Case C-469/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de cassation): Ravil SARL v Bellon import SARL,
Biraghi SpA (1)

(Protected designations of origin — Regulation (EEC)
No 2081/92 — Regulation (EEC) No 1107/96 — ‘Grana
Padano’ freshly grated — Specification — Convention
between two Member States — Condition that the cheese is
grated and packaged in the region of production —
Articles 29 EC and 30 EC — Justification — Whether the
condition may be relied on against third parties — Legal
certainty— Publicity)

(2003/C 171/04)

(Language of the case: French)

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

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 grating and packaging of
the product take place in the region of production, where such a
condition is laid down in the specification.

3. Where the use of the protected designation of origin ‘Grana
Padano’ for cheese marketed in grated form is made subject to
the condition that grating 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.

In Case C-469/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling

4. However, the condition in question may not be relied on against
economic operators, as it was not brought to their knowledge
by adequate publicity in Community legislation. Nevertheless,
the principle of legal certainty does not preclude that condition

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