Case C-213/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 10 February 2005 in Wendy Geven v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
Date: 2005-08-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, equal treatment, family benefit, free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, worker (EU)

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/9

The preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities is requested on the following questions which
arise on the interpretation of Article 1(b) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of
a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (1)
(hereafter ‘the Regulation’):

1. In a case in which the basic patent protects a second
medical application of a therapeutic agent what is meant by
‘product’ in Article 1 (b) of the Regulation and in particular
does the application of the therapeutic agent play any part
in the definition of ‘product’ for the purpose of the Regu-
lation?

2. Does the term ‘combination of active ingredients of a medic-
inal product’ within the meaning of Article l(b) of the Regu-
lation mean that each component of the combination must
have therapeutic activity?

3. Is there a ‘combination of active ingredients of a medicinal
product’ where a combination of substances comprising two
components of which one component is a substance with a
therapeutic effect for a specific indication and the other
component
the medicinal
product that brings about efficacy of the medicinal product
for that indication?

renders possible a form of

(1) OJ L 182, 02.07.1992, p. 1

Gertraud Hartmann and Freistaat Bayern on the following ques-
tions:

(a) Is a German national who, while continuing his employ-
ment relationship as a post office official
in Germany,
moved his permanent residence from Germany to Austria
in 1990 and has since then carried on his occupation as a
frontier worker to be regarded as a migrant worker within
the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) of the
Council on freedom of movement for workers within the
Community (‘Regulation No 1612/68’) for periods between
January 1994 and September 1998?

(b) If so:

it

constitute

Does
indirect discrimination within the
meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 if the
non-working spouse of the person mentioned in (a), who
lives in Austria and is an Austrian national, was excluded
from receiving German child-raising allowance in the
period in question because she did not have either her
permanent
residence or her habitual place of stay in
Germany?

(1) OJ, English Special Edition, 1968 /II), p. 475.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozial-
gericht by order of that court of 10 February 2005 in
Gertraud Hartmann v Freistaat Bayern

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozial-
gericht by order of that court of 10 February 2005 in
Wendy Geven v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-212/05)

(2005/C 193/15)

(Language of the case: German)

(Case C-213/05)

(2005/C 193/16)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht of 10
February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 17 May
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht of 10
February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 17 May
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Wendy Geven and Land Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following
question:

C 193/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.8.2005

Does it follow from Community law (in particular from Article
7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) of the Council on
freedom of movement for workers within the Community) that
the Federal Republic of Germany is precluded from excluding a
national of that State who lives in another Member State and is
in minor employment (between 3 and 14 hours a week) in
Germany from receiving German child-raising allowance
because she does not have a residence or habitual place of stay
in Germany?

(1) OJ, English Special Edition1968 (II), p. 475.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Irish planning law provides that participation fees can be
charged to members of the public by planning authorities and
by a planning appeals board for submitting observations or
expressing opinions in planning procedures and for submitting
observations in planning appeals. The Commission submits
that the levying of such participation fees constitutes a breach
of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EEC,
on the following grounds:

— no express provision of the directive permits the levying of

such fees;

— such fees are contrary to the scheme and purpose of the

directive;

Action brought on 17 May 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against Ireland

— the wording of Article 6(2) and (3) of the directive does not
allow for the latitude in interpretation that Ireland seeks to
give it, and;

(Case C-216/05)

(2005/C 193/17)

(Language of the case: English)

— Ireland impedes the rights given to the public under Article

6(2) of the Directive.

(1) OJ L 175, 05.07.1985, p. 40
(2) OJ L 73, 14.03.1997, p. 5

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 17 May 2005 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by Mr
Xavier Lewis, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by making the full and effective participation of
the public in certain environmental
impact assessments
subject to prior payment of participation fees, Ireland has
failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 6 and 8
of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the
the effects of certain public and private
assessment of
projects on the environment (1) as amended by Council
Directive 97/11/EEC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive
85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment (2),

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Supremo by order of that court of 3 March 2005 in
Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de
Servicio v Compañía Españolas de Petróleos SA

(Case C-217/05)

(2005/C 193/18)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)
of 3 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 17 May
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de
Servicio and Compañía Españolas de Petróleos SA on the
following questions: