Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case C-212/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Measures having equivalent effect — Prior authorisation procedure for personal imports of medicinal products — Medicinal products for human consumption — Homeopathic medicinal products)
Date: 2005-07-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, import, market approval, medicinal product

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

by Article 6 or Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association
Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Asso-
ciation.

(Third Chamber)

of 2 June 2005

(1) OJ C 135, 7.6.2003.

in Case C-136/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Georg Dörr v Sicherheits-
direktion für das Bundesland Kärnten and Ibrahim Ünal v
Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Vorarlberg (1)

(Free movement of persons — Public policy — Directive
64/221/EEC — Articles 8 and 9 — Refusal of residence
permit and deportation order on criminal grounds — Appeal
only on the legality of the measure ending the right of resi-
dence of the claimant — Appeal having no suspensory effect
— Right of the claimant to submit observations on appropri-
ateness before a body liable to give an opinion — EEC-
Turkey Association Agreement — Free movement of workers
— Articles 6(1) and 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Asso-
ciation Council)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 26 May 2005

in Case C-212/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v French Republic (1)

(2005/C 182/09)

(Language of the case: German)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Measures
having equivalent effect — Prior authorisation procedure for
personal imports of medicinal products — Medicinal products
for human consumption — Homeopathic medicinal products)

In Case C-136/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof
(Higher
Administrative Court) (Austria), made by decision of 18 March
2003, received at the Court on 26 March 2003, in the proceed-
ings Georg Dörr v Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland
Kärnten and Ibrahim Ünal v Sicherheitsdirektion für das
Bundesland Vorarlberg — the Court
(Third Chamber)
composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
A. Borg Barthet, S. von Bahr, J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus,
Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arza-
mendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judg-
ment on 2 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Article 9(1) of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February
1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the
movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on
grounds of public policy, public security or public health is to be
interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under
which appeals brought against a decision to expel a national of
another Member State from the territory of that first Member
State have no suspensory effect and, at the time of examination of
such appeal, the decision to expel can be the subject only of an
assessment as to its legality, inasmuch as no competent authority
within the meaning of that provision has been established.

2. The procedural guarantees set out in Articles 8 and 9 of Directive
64/221 apply to Turkish nationals whose legal status is defined

(2005/C 182/10)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-212/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities (Agents: H. Støvlbæk and B. Stromsky) v French
Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues, C. Bergeot-Nunes and R.
Loosli-Surrans) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to
fulfil obligations, brought on 15 May 2003 — the Court
(Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, Presi-
dent of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen,
J. Makarczyk and J. Klučka, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, in which it:

1. Declares that, by applying:

— a prior authorisation procedure to personal

imports, not
effected by personal transport, of medicinal products lawfully
prescribed in France and authorised under Council Directive
65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of
provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
action relating to proprietary medicinal products, as amended
by Council Directive 93/39/EEC of 14 June 1993, both in
France and in the Member State where they are purchased;

C 182/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.7.2005

— a prior authorisation procedure to personal

imports, not
effected by personal
transport, of homeopathic medicinal
products lawfully prescribed in France and registered in a
Member State pursuant to Council Directive 92/73/EEC of
22 September 1992 widening the
scope of Directives
65/65/EEC and 75/319/EEC on the approximation of provi-
sions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action
relating to medicinal products and laying down additional
provisions on homeopathic medicinal products; and

— a disproportionate prior authorisation procedure to personal
imports, not effected by personal
transport, of medicinal
products lawfully prescribed in France and not authorised in
that Member State but only in the Member State where they
are purchased,

the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article
28 EC;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 171 of 19.07.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 2 June 2005

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

in Case C-266/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(1) OJ C 158 of 05.07.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 24 May 2005

in Case C-244/03: French Republic v European Parliament
and Council of the European Union (1)

(Cosmetic products — Testing on animals — Directive
2003/15/EC — Partial annulment — Article 1(2) — Non-
severability — Inadmissibility)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Nego-
tiation, conclusion, ratification and implementation of bilat-
eral agreements by a Member State — Transport of goods or
passengers by inland waterway — External competence of the
Community — Article 10 EC — Regulations (EEC) No 3921/
91 and (EC) No 1356/96)

(2005/C 182/12)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-266/03: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: C. Schmidt and W. Wils) v Grand Duchy of Luxem-
bourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for
failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 18 June 2003 — the
Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the
Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), K. Lenaerts, S. von
Bahr and K. Schiemann, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R.
Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 June 2005, in which it:

(2005/C 182/11)

for the entry into force of

1. Declares that, by negotiating, concluding, ratifying and arranging

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-244/03: French Republic (Agents: F. Alabrune, C.
Lemaire and G. de Bergues, and subsequently the latter, J. L.
Florent and D. Petrausch) v European Parliament (Agents: J.L.
Rufas Quintana and M. Moore, and subsequently the latter and
K. Bradley) and Council of the European Union (Agents: J.-P.
Jacqué and M.C. Giorgi Fort) — Action for annulment under
Article 230 EC, brought on 3 June 2003 — the Court (Grand
Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P.
Jann and
C.W.A. Timmermans, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, A.
La Pergola,
J.-P. Puissochet, R Schintgen, K. Schiemann
(Rapporteur), J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris, U. Lõhmus, E. Levits and
A. Ó Caoimh,
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; K.
Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
24 May 2005, in which it:

1. Dismisses the action;

— the agreement between the Government of the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg and the Government of the Czech and Slovak
Federative Republic on inland waterway transport, signed in
Luxembourg on 30 December 1992;

— the agreement between the Government of the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg and the Government of Romania on inland
waterway transport, signed in Bucharest on 10 November
1993; and

— the agreement between the Government of the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg and the Government of the Republic of Poland
on inland waterway transport, signed in Luxembourg on 9
March 1994,

without having cooperated or consulted with the Commission, the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 10 EC;