Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 February 2004 in Case C-270/02: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Measures having equivalent effect — Foodstuffs for sportsmen and women lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States — Prior marketing authorisation)
Date: 2004-04-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, consumer information, foodstuff, market approval, marketing

C 85/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.4.2004

Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction
and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters,
as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession
of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October
1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention
of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
Portuguese Republic, must be interpreted as follows:

of initiating a procedure for that purpose without having
shown that it is necessary and proportionate, the Italian
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28
EC and 30 EC, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Chamber, J.-
P. Puissochet and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 5 February 2004, in which it:

‘matters relating to a contract’ do not cover the obligation which a
guarantor who paid customs duties under a guarantee obtained by
the forwarding agent seeks to enforce in legal proceedings by way of
subrogation to the rights of the customs authorities and by way of
recourse against the owner of the goods, if the latter, who was not a
party to the contract of guarantee, did not authorise the conclusion of
that contract.

(1) OJ C 233 of 28.9.2002.

1. Declares that, by maintaining in force legislation which subjects
the marketing of
food products for sportsmen and women
lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States to
a requirement of applying for prior authorisation and of
initiating a procedure for that purpose without having shown
that it is necessary and proportionate, the Italian Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 5 February 2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 12 February 2004

in Case C-270/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Italian Republic (1)

(Measures having equivalent effect — Foodstuffs for sports-
men and women lawfully manufactured and marketed in
other Member States — Prior marketing authorisation)

(2004/C 85/14)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

in Case C-406/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
to communicate reports required under Directives 76/464/
EEC, 78/659/EEC and 80/68/EEC — Standardising and
rationalising reports on the implementation of certain direc-
tives relating to the environment)

(2004/C 85/15)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-270/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: C.-F. Durand and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
(Agent: I. M. Braguglia, assisted by G. Aiello, avvocato dello
Stato) with an address for service in Luxembourg: Application
for a declaration that, by maintaining in force legislation which
subjects the marketing of food products for sportsmen and
women lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member
States to a requirement of applying for prior authorisation and

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

In Case C-406/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: B. Stromsky) with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: E. Dominkovitz) with
an address for service in Luxembourg: Application for a
declaration that, by failing to communicate to it, within the