Case C-258/03: Action brought on 17 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, free movement of persons, residence permit

6.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/11

Appeal brought on 27 May 2003 by Maja srl against the
judgment delivered on 12 March 2003 by the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-254/99 between Maja srl and
Commission of the European Communities

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’Etat
(Belgium) — Section d’administration by judgment of that
Court of 9 May 2003 in the case of Merck, Sharp and
Dohme BV against État belge

(Case C-238/03 P)

(2003/C 213/17)

(Case C-245/03)

(2003/C 213/18)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 March 2003
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-254/99 between Maja srl
and Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
27 May 2003 by Maja srl, represented by P. Piva, R. Mastroianni
and G. Arendt, lawyers.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber) of 12 March 2003 and consequently
annul also the measure appealed against at first instance;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings

before the Court of Justice and at first instance.

Pleas and main arguments

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’État
(Belgium) — Section d’administration (Council of State —
Administrative Section) of 9 May 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 10 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Merck, Sharp and Dohme BV against Etat belge on the
following question:

Must the time-limit of 90 days, which may be extended for a
further 90 days, mentioned in the first subparagraph of
Article 6(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December
1988 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 (1), be
regarded as a merely indicative time-limit or as a mandatory
time-limit and, if the time-limit is mandatory, what are the
consequences of exceeding it as regards the response to be
given to the application for inclusion of a medicinal product
in the list of medicinal products covered by the health
insurance system?

Must exceeding the time-limit be deemed to constitute
inclusion in the abovementioned list?

The appellant claims that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance is vitiated on the following grounds:

(1) OJ L 40 of 11.02.1989, p. 8.

the right

the principle of

infringement of Regulation No 4028/86 (1) and implementing
Regulation No 1116/88 (2), as interpreted in the light of the
‘comitology’ decision; defective and illogical grounds; breach
of
to a fair hearing and of
legal expectations; manifest inconsistency and contradiction;
absence of correspondence between the remedy sought and
the judgment; breach of the obligation to state the reasons on
which the judgment is based, laid down in Article 33 of the
EC Statute of the Court of Justice as referred to in Article 46 of
the Statute itself; breach of the principle of rights of the
defence; breach of essential procedural requirements; breach
of the general principles of delegated authority.

( 1) OJ 1986 L 376, p. 7.
( 2) OJ 1988 L 112, p. 1.

Action brought on 17 June 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-258/03)

(2003/C 213/19)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 June
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Condou Durande, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

C 213/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2003

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

1.

declare that, by making the grant of a permanent
residence permit to nationals of the other Member States
referred to in Article 1(a), (c), (f), (h), (i) and (j) of Decree
No 94-221 of 11 March 1994 laying down the conditions
of entry to, and residence in France applicable to nationals
of Member States of the European Communities entitled
to freedom of movement
to a
condition of reciprocity, the French Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 EC;

for persons subject

2.

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The French legislation determining the conditions for issuing
permanent residence permits to nationals of Member States
and members of their family, makes the grant of those permits
subject to a condition of reciprocity, namely the condition that
the applicant be a national of a Member State which issues
residence permits of permanent validity to French nationals
who have exercised their right to freedom of movement. Such
a condition is manifestly contrary to Article 12 EC, read with
Articles 17, 18(1), 39 and 43 EC.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Audiencia
Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso Administrativo by order
of that Court of 9 May 2003 in the case of Igor Simutenkov
against Abogado del Estado, Real Federación Española de
Fútbol and Ministerio Fiscal

(Case C-265/03)

(2003/C 213/20)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Audiencia Nacional
(National High Court) Sala de lo Contencioso Administrativo
(Chamber for Contentious Administrative Proceedings) of
9 May 2003, received at the Court Registry on 17 June 2003,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Igor Simutenkov against
Abogado del Estado, Real Federación Española de Fútbol and
Ministerio Fiscal on the following question:

24 June 1994, for a sports federation to apply to a professional
sportsman of Russian nationality who is lawfully employed by
a Spanish football club, as in the main proceedings, a rule
which provides that clubs may use in competitions at national
level only a limited number of players from countries outside
the European Economic Area?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Högsta Dom-
stolen by order of that Court of 10 April 2003 in the case
of Lars Erik Staffan Lindberg against Riksåklagaren

(Case C-267/03)

(2003/C 213/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Högsta Domstolen
(Supreme Court) of 10 April 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 18 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Lars Erik Staffan Lindberg against Riksåklagaren (public
prosecutor) on the following questions of interpretation of
Council Directive 83/189/EEC (1) (as amended by Directive 88/
182/EC (2) and by European Parliament and Council Directive
94/10/EC (3) in the light of the amendments to the Lottery Law
which entered into force on 1 January 1997:

1.

2.

3.

Can the introduction in national law of a prohibition on
the use of a product constitute a technical regulation
which must be notified under the regulation?

Can the introduction in national law of a prohibition on
a service which affects the use of a product constitute a
technical regulation which must be notified under the
regulation?

Can the redefinition in national law of a service connected
with the design of a product constitute a technical
regulation which must be notified under the directive, if
the new definition affects the use of the product?

Is it contrary to Article 23 of the Agreement on partnership and
cooperation establishing a partnership between the European
Communities and their Member States, of one part, and the
Russian Federation, of the other part, concluded in Corfu on

4. What is the significance for the obligation to notify of
factors such as the replacement of a licence requirement
by a prohibition in national law, the greater or lesser