Case C-159/04: Referencefor a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Protodikio Ioanninon by decisionof that court of 26 November 2003 in the caseof Carrefour Marinopoulos AE against (1) Elliniko Dimosio and (2) NomarkhiakiAftodiikisi Ioanninon
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bread, consumer protection, interpretation of the law, marketing, prepared foodstuff, product quality, public health, quantitative restriction

C 106/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

3. Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(c) On the basis that the abovementioned restriction concerns
both domestic and Community ‘bake-off’ products without
distinction, is there a link with Community law and is that
restriction capable of affecting, whether directly or indir-
ectly, actually or potentially,
those
products between Member States?

the free trading of

The existence of uncontrolled tips at Punta de Avalos and
Olvera implies that the Kingdom of Spain has not adopted the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed to guar-
antee the responsible disposal and recovery of waste, as
required by the Community legislation.

(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
(3) OJ L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20.
(4) OJ L 182 of 16.7.1999, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Proto-
dikio Ioanninon by decision of that court of 26 November
2003 in the case of Carrefour Marinopoulos AE against (1)
Elliniko Dimosio and (2) Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Ioan-
ninon

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Proto-
dikio Ioanninon by decision of that court of 10 November
2003 in the case of Trofo-Supermarkets AE against (1) Elli-
niko Dimosio and (2) Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Ioanninon

(Case C-158/04)

(2004/C 106/83)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of the Diikitiko Protodikio Ioan-
ninon (Administrative Court of First Instance, Ioannina) of 10
November 2003, received at the Court Registry on 29 March
2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Trofo-Supermar-
(1) Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) and (2)
kets AE against
Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi
Ioanninon (Prefectural Authority of
Ioannina) on the following questions:

(a) Does the requirement for the prior licence referred to in
the grounds of the decision in order to market ‘bake-off’
products constitute a measure equivalent to a quantitative
restriction within the meaning of Article 28 of the EC
Treaty?

(b) If it were considered to be a quantitative restriction, does
the requirement for a prior licence in order to make bread
pursue a purely qualitative objective, that is to say establish
a mere qualitative differentiation with regard to the charac-
teristics of the bread marketed (of smell, taste, colour and
the appearance of the crust) and its nutritional value (judg-
ment of the Court of Justice in Case C-325/00 Commission
v Germany [2002] ECR I-9977) or does it seek to protect
consumers and public health from any deterioration in the
bread's quality (Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State)
3852/2002)?

(Case C-159/04)

(2004/C 106/84)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of the Diikitiko Protodikio Ioan-
ninon (Administrative Court of First Instance, Ioannina) of 26
November 2003, received at the Court Registry on 29 March
2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Carrefour Marino-
poulos AE against (1) Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) and (2)
Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi
Ioanninon (Prefectural Authority of
Ioannina) on the following questions:

(a) Does the requirement for the prior licence referred to in
the grounds of the decision in order to market ‘bake-off’
products constitute a measure equivalent to a quantitative
restriction within the meaning of Article 28 of the EC
Treaty?

(b) If it were considered to be a quantitative restriction, does
the requirement for a prior licence in order to make bread
pursue a purely qualitative objective, that is to say establish
a mere qualitative differentiation with regard to the charac-
teristics of the bread marketed (of smell, taste, colour and
the appearance of the crust) and its nutritional value (judg-
ment of the Court of Justice in Case C-325/00 Commission
v Germany [2002] ECR I-9977) or does it seek to protect
consumers and public health from any deterioration in the
bread's quality (Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State)
3852/2002)?

(c) On the basis that the abovementioned restriction concerns
both domestic and Community ‘bake-off’ products without
distinction, is there a link with Community law and is that
restriction capable of affecting, whether directly or indir-
ectly, actually or potentially,
those
products between Member States?

the free trading of