Case C-238/03 P: 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
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), aquaculture, fishing industry, modernisation aid, suspension of aid

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.