Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case C-20/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge in the criminal proceedings against Marcel Burmanjer, René Alexander Van Der Linden, Anthony De Jong (Free movement of goods — Article 28 EC — Measures having equivalent effect — Itinerant sale — Conclusion of contracts for subscriptions to periodicals — Prior authorisation)
Date: 2005-07-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of goods, free movement of persons, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, market approval, serial publication

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/3

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 26 May 2005

in Case C-20/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge in the criminal
proceedings against Marcel Burmanjer, René Alexander
Van Der Linden, Anthony De Jong (1)

(Free movement of goods — Article 28 EC — Measures
having equivalent effect — Itinerant sale — Conclusion of
contracts for subscriptions to periodicals — Prior authorisa-
tion)

(2005/C 182/05)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-20/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge
(Belgium), made by decision of 17 January 2003, received at
the Court on 21 January 2003,
in the criminal proceedings
against Marcel Burmanjer, René Alexander Van Der Linden,
Anthony De Jong — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P.
the Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), K.
Jann, President of
Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann,
Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, Regis-
trar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, the operative part of
which is as follows:

Article 28 EC does not preclude national
rules under which a
Member State makes an offence of the itinerant sale within its terri-
tory, without prior authorisation, of subscriptions to periodicals, where
such rules apply, without distinction based on the origin of
the
products in question, to all the economic operators concerned carrying
on their activity within that State, provided that such rules affect in
the same manner,
in law and in fact, the marketing of products
originating in that State and that of products from other Member
States.

It is for the referring court to determine, having regard to the facts of
the main proceedings, whether the application of national law is such
as to ensure that those rules affect in the same manner, in law and in
fact, the marketing of domestic products and that of products from
other Member States, and, if that is not the case, to establish whether
the rules in question are justified by an objective in the general interest
within the meaning which the Court's case-law gives to that expres-
sion and whether they are proportional to that objective.

(Grand Chamber)

of 31 May 2005

in Case C-53/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Epitropi Antagonismou in Synetairismos Farmako-
poion Aitolias & Akarnanias (Syfait) and Others v Glaxo-
SmithKline plc and Others (1)

(Admissibility — Meaning of court or tribunal of a Member
State — Abuse of a dominant position — Refusal to supply
pharmaceutical products to wholesalers — Parallel trade)

(2005/C 182/06)

(Language of the case: Greek)

In Case C-53/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Epitropi Antagonismou (Greece),
made by decision of 22 January 2003, received at the Court on
5 February 2003,
in the proceedings between Synetairismos
Farmakopoion Aitolias & Akarnanias (Syfait) and Others, Panel-
linios syllogos farmakapothikarion, Interfarm, A. Agelakos &
Sia OE and Others, K.P. Marinopoulos Anonymos Etairia
emporias kai dianomis farmakeftikon proïonton and Others
formerly
and GlaxoSmithKline plc, GlaxoSmithKline AEVE,
Glaxowellcome AEVE — the Court
(Grand Chamber),
composed of V. Skouris, President of the Chamber, P. Jann,
C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Presi-
dents of Chambers, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, N.
Colneric and S. von Bahr,
Jacobs, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
gave a judgment on 31 May 2005, in which it ruled:

Judges; F.G.

The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction
to answer the questions referred by the Epitropi Antagonismou by
decision of 22 January 2003.

(1) OJ C 70 of 22.03.2003.

(1) OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.