Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 April 2005 in Case C-267/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen Lars Erik Staffan Lindberg (Directive 83/189/EEC — Notification procedure in the field of technical standards and regulations — Obligation to notify draft technical regulations — National legislation on gaming and lotteries — Gaming machines — Prohibition on the organisation of games on gaming machines which do not pay out winnings directly — Machines of the ‘wheel of fortune’ type — Definition of ’technical regulation’)
Date: 2005-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs regulations, interpretation of the law, standardisation, technical specification, technical standard

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/9

the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Arti-
cles 3, 4 and 5 of Directive 80/68.

2. Declares that, having failed to take the measures necessary to
record and identify the hazardous waste tipped in the region of
Thriassion Pedion and to draw up, either separately or in the
framework of their general waste management plans, plans for the
management of hazardous waste in the region of Thriassion
Pedion, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive
91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste.

3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 21 April 2005

in Joined Cases C-207/03 and C-252/03: References for
preliminary rulings from the High Court of Justice of
England and Wales, Chancery Division (Patents Court)
(United Kingdom, C-207/03), and from the Cour adminis-
trative (Luxembourg, C-252/03) Novartis AG and Others v
Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
for the United Kingdom, and Ministre de l'Économie v
Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1)

(Patent law — Medicinal products — Supplementary protec-
tion certificate for medicinal products)

(2005/C 143/09)

(Languages of the case: English and French)

In Joined Cases C-207/03 and C-252/03: References for preli-
minary rulings under Article 234 EC from the High Court of
Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division (Patents
Court) (United Kingdom, C-207/03), and from the Cour admin-
istrative (Luxembourg, C-252/03), made by decisions of 6 May
and 3 June 2003, received at the Court on 14 May and 13 June
in the proceedings between Novartis AG (C-207/03),
2003,
University College London, Institute of Microbiology and Epide-
miology and Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and
Trade Marks for the United Kingdom and between Ministre de

l'Économie (C-252/03) and Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
formerly Cor Therapeutics Inc. — the Court (Second Chamber),
composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber,
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advo-
cate General, M. Múgica Arzamendi, Administrator,
for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 April 2005, the operative
part of which is as follows:

In so far as an authorisation to place a medicinal product on the
market issued by the Swiss authorities and automatically recognised
by the Principality of Liechtenstein under that State's legislation is the
first authorisation to place that product on the market in one of the
States of the European Economic Area, it constitutes the first authori-
sation to place the product on the market within the meaning of
Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June
1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate
for medicinal products, as it is to be read for the purposes of the
application of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

(1) OJ C 158 of 05.07.2003, OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 21 April 2005

in Case C-267/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Högsta domstolen Lars Erik Staffan Lindberg (1)

(Directive 83/189/EEC — Notification procedure in the field
of technical standards and regulations — Obligation to
notify draft technical regulations — National legislation on
gaming and lotteries — Gaming machines — Prohibition on
the organisation of games on gaming machines which do not
pay out winnings directly — Machines of the ‘wheel of
fortune’ type — Definition of 'technical regulation')

(2005/C 143/10)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

In Case C-267/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden), made by
decision of 10 April 2003, received at the Court on 18 June
2003,
in the criminal proceedings against Lars Erik Staffan
Lindberg — the Court: (Second Chamber) composed of C.W.A.

C 143/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.6.2005

(Rapporteur), President of

Timmermans
the Chamber, C.
Gulmann, R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; F.G.
Jacobs, Advocate General, H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
gave a judgment on 21 April 2005, the operative part of
which is as follows:

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 14 April 2005

i

(lag

Lotteries

Law on

om ändring

1. National provisions such as the Law on Lotteries (lotterilagen
(1994:1000)), in the version resulting from the law amending
lotterilagen
the
(1996:1168)), which entail a prohibition on the organisation of
games of chance using certain gaming machines are liable to
constitute a technical regulation within the meaning of Article
1(9) of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying
down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of
technical standards and regulations, as amended by Directive
94/10/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23
March 1994, where it is established that the scope of the prohibi-
tion at issue leaves no room for any use which can reasonably be
expected of the product concerned other than a purely marginal
one or, if that is not the case, where it is established that that
prohibition may significantly influence the composition or nature
of the product or its marketing.

2. Redefining in national

the

legislation a service connected with the
design of a product, in particular that of operating certain gaming
machines, as
law (1996:1168) amending the Law on
Lotteries did, can constitute a technical regulation which must be
notified under Directive 83/189, as amended by Directive 94/10,
replace,
if
without adding new or additional specifications, existing technical
regulations which, if adopted after the entry into force of Directive
83/189 in the Member State concerned, have been duly notified
to the Commission of the European Communities.

that new legislation does not merely reproduce or

3. The replacement of a licence requirement by a prohibition in
national law may be a significant factor with regard to the obliga-
tion to notify provided for by Directive 83/189, as amended by
Directive 94/10.

The greater or lesser value of the product or service or the size of
the market for the product or service are factors which are not rele-
vant as regards the obligation to notify provided for by that direc-
tive.

(1) OJ C 213 of 06.09.2003.

in Case C-385/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof in Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v
Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG (1)

(Export refunds — Misdeclaration — Meaning of ‘request’
— Sanction — Requirements)

(2005/C 143/11)

(Language of the case: German)

received at

In Case C-385/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by
decision of 30 July 2003,
the Court on 12
September 2003,
in the proceedings between Hauptzollamt
Hamburg-Jonas and Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH &
Co. KG — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann,
President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, E.
Juhász (Rapporteur) and E. Levits, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advo-
cate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave
a judgment on 14 April 2005, the operative part of which is as
follows:

The first and second subparagraphs of Article 11(1) of Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down
common detailed rules for the application of the system of export
refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994, are to be interpreted
as meaning that wrong information contained in a document referred
to in Article 3(5) of that regulation, that is, the export declaration or
another document used for export, and capable of leading to a refund
in excess of the refund applicable, gives rise to the imposition of the
sanction prescribed by Article 11. That rule applies even if, in connec-
tion with the application for payment referred to in Article 47 of that
regulation, it is expressly stated that payment of the export refund is
not sought for certain products covered by that document.

(1) OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.