Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-443/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pordenone): Nicolas Schreiber (Article 28 EC — Directive 98/8/EC — Placing of biocidal products on the market — National measure requiring authorisation for the placing on the market of blocks of red cedar wood having natural anti-moth properties)
Date: 2004-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal health, chemical product, environmental protection, interpretation of the law, interpreting, marketing, public health

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/9

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 13 July 2004

2. Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49
EC) does not preclude a Member State from prohibiting television
advertising for alcoholic beverages marketed in that State, in the
case of indirect television advertising resulting from the appearance
on screen of hoardings visible during the retransmission of bi-
national sporting events taking place in other Member States.

in Case C-429/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de Cassation (France): Bacardi France SAS v Télé-
vision française 1 SA (TF1) and Others (1)

(1) OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.

(Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article
49 EC) — Directive 89/552/CEE — Television without fron-
tiers — Television broadcasting — Advertising — National
measure prohibiting television advertising for alcoholic
drinks marketed in that Member State, in the case of indirect
television advertising arising from the appearance on screen
of hoardings visible during the transmission of sporting
events — ‘Loi Evin’)

(2004/C 228/16)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-429/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Cour de Cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Bacardi
France SAS, formerly Bacardi-Martini SAS, and Télévision fran-
çaise 1 SA (TF1), Groupe Jean-Claude Darmon SA, Girosport
SARL, on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/552/CEE
of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions
regulation or administrative action in
laid down by law,
Member States concerning the pursuit of
television broad-
casting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23) and Article 59 of the
EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) – the Court
(Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann
(Rapporteur), A. Rosas, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N.
Cunha Rodrigues (Presidents of Chambers), R. Schintgen, S.
von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advo-
cate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 July 2004, the opera-
tive part of which is as follows:

1. The

first

sentence

of Council Directive
of Article 2(2)
89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain
provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting
activities does not preclude a Member State from prohibiting tele-
vision advertising for alcoholic beverages marketed in that State,
indirect television advertising resulting from the
in the case of
appearance on screen of hoardings visible during the retransmis-
sion of bi-national sporting events taking place in the territory of
other Member States.

That kind of indirect television advertising is not to be classed as
‘television advertising’ within the meaning of Articles 1(b), 10 and
11 of the directive.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 15 July 2004

in Case C-443/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale di Pordenone): Nicolas Schreiber (1)

(Article 28 EC — Directive 98/8/EC — Placing of biocidal
products on the market — National measure requiring
authorisation for the placing on the market of blocks of red
cedar wood having natural anti-moth properties)

(2004/C 228/17)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-443/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Tribunale di Pordenone (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
in the criminal proceedings before that court against Nicolas
Schreiber — on the interpretation of Directive 98/8/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998
concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ
1998 L 123, p. 1), and Article 28 EC — the Court (First
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the
Chamber, A. Rosas, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K.
Lenaerts, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L.
Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judg-
ment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as
follows:

1. Article 3(2)(ii) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing
of biocidal products on the market does not preclude a Member
State from requiring prior authorisation for the marketing of
blocks of red cedar wood having natural anti-moth properties.

Such blocks cannot be classed as a product containing only a
‘basic substance’ such that they may be placed on the market in
Italy without prior authorisation or registration, but must be
classed as a ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning of Directive
98/8.

C 228/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.9.2004

2. Article 4(1) of Directive 98/8 does not preclude a Member State
from requiring prior authorisation for the marketing of blocks of
red cedar wood having natural anti-moth properties, which have
been lawfully placed on the market in another Member State in
which there is no requirement of authorisation or registration.

3. The fact that a Member State requires prior authorisation for the
marketing of blocks of red cedar wood having natural anti-moth
properties, which have been lawfully placed on the market
in
another Member State in which there is no requirement of authori-
sation or registration, constitutes a measure having equivalent
effect contrary to Article 28 EC, which may nevertheless be
regarded as justified on grounds of the protection of public health
under Article 30 EC.

(1) OJ C 31 of 8.2.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 15 July 2004

in Case C-459/02 (reference to the Court under Article
234 EC by the Cour de Cassation (Luxembourg)): Willy
Gerekens and Association agricole pour la promotion de
la commercialisation laitière Procola v State of the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Milk — Additional
levy in the milk and milk products sector — National legisla-
tion — Levy fixed retroactively — General principles of legal
certainty and non-retroactivity)

(2004/C 228/18)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-459/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Cour de Cassation (Luxembourg)
for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Willy Gerekens and Association agricole pour la promotion de
la commercialisation laitière Procola against the State of the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on the interpretation of
the
general principles of Community law of legal certainty and
non-retroactivity in respect of national rules in the sphere of
milk production quotas which were adopted in place of initial
rules held by the Court of Justice to be discriminatory and
which make it possible to penalise retroactively production in
excess of those quotas after the entry into force of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984 amending

Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the common organisation of
the market in milk and milk products (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 10)
and Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984
adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred
to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and
milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), but in accordance
with the national rules which have been replaced,— the Court
(Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, acting for the Presi-
the Third Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric
dent of
(Rapporteur),
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 July 2004,
the operative part of which is as follows:

The general principles of Community law of legal certainty and non-
retroactivity do not mean that, for the application of Community rules
establishing production quotas of
the type introduced by Council
Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984 amending Regu-
lation (EEC) No 804/68 on the common organisation of the market
in milk and milk products and Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84
of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the
levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the
milk and milk products sector, a Member State is precluded from
adopting, in place of initial rules held by the Court of Justice to be
discriminatory, new rules applying retroactively to production in excess
of the production quotas introduced following the entry into force of
those regulations, but in accordance with the national rules which
have been replaced.

(1) OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 15 July 2004

in Case C-463/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Kingdom of Sweden (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
77/388/EEC — VAT — Article 11(A)(1)(a) — Taxable
amount — Subsidy directly linked to the price — Regulation
(EC) No 603/95 — Aid granted in the dried fodder sector)

(2004/C 228/19)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

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

In Case C-463/02: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and K. Simonsson) v Kingdom of Sweden
(Agent: A. Falk) supported by Republic of Finland (Agent: