Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-192/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation in Lagardère Active Broadcast v Société pour la perception de la rémunération équitable (SPRE) and Others (Copyright and neighbouring rights — Broadcasting of phonograms — Equitable remuneration)
Date: 2005-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European audiovisual area, broadcasting, cable distribution, free movement of programmes, interpretation of the law, quasi-fiscal charge

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/19

The compensatory measures referred to in Article 4(1) of Directive
92/51 may be imposed on the person concerned only in so far as
they are provided for in the national legislation in force at the time of
processing the application in question.

bers, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, J. P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen,
J. Klučka, U. Lõhmus, E. Levits and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; L.A.
Geelhoed, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 July 2005, in which it ruled:

(1) OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.

Examination of the question referred to the Court has revealed no
factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Articles 3, 4(1) and
15(b) of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to food supplements.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(1) OJ C 118 of 30.04.2004.

(Grand Chamber)

of 12 July 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

in Joined Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04: Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England
and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative
Court) in The Queen, Alliance for Natural Health and
Others v Secretary of State for Health, and The Queen,
National Association of Health Stores and Others v Secre-
tary of State for Health, National Assembly for Wales (1)

(Approximation of laws — Food supplements — Directive
2002/46/EC — Prohibition on trade
in products not
complying with the directive — Validity — Legal basis —
Article 95 EC — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Regulation
(EC) No 3285/94 — Principles of subsidiarity, proportion-
ality and equal treatment — Right to property — Freedom to
pursue an economic activity — Obligation to state reasons)

(Third Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-192/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de cassation in Lagardère Active Broadcast v
Société pour la perception de la rémunération équitable
(SPRE) and Others (1)

(Copyright and neighbouring rights — Broadcasting of
phonograms — Equitable remuneration)

(2005/C 217/36)

(Language of the case: English)

(2005/C 217/37)

(Language of the case: French)

In Joined Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04: reference for a preli-
minary ruling under the High Court of Justice (England and
Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United
Kingdom) made by decisions of 17 March 2004, received at
the Court on 26 March 2004, in the proceedings between The
Queen, on the application of: Alliance for Natural Health (C-
154/04), Nutri-Link Ltd and Secretary of State for Health,
National Assembly for Wales and The Queen, on the applica-
tion of: National Association of Health Stores (C-155/04),
Health Food Manufacturers Ltd v Secretary of State for Health,
National Assembly for Wales — the Court (Grand Chamber),
composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmer-
mans, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Presidents of Cham-

In Case C-192/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Cour de cassation (France), made by
decision of 17 February 2004, received at the Court on 26
April 2004,
in the proceedings between Lagardère Active
Broadcast (the successor in title to Europe 1 communication
SA) and Société pour la perception de la rémunération équi-
table (SPRE) and Gesellschaft zur Verwertung von Leis-
tungsschutzrechten mbH (GVL); third party: Compagnie euro-
péenne de radiodiffusion et de télévision Europe 1 SA (CERT)
— the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President
of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, S. von Bahr, J. Malenovský
(Rapporteur) and U. Lõhmus,
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it ruled:

C 217/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2005

1. In the case of a broadcast of the kind at issue in this case, Council
Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination
of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright
applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission does
not preclude the fee for phonogram use being governed not only by
the law of the Member State in whose territory the broadcasting
company is established but also by the legislation of the Member
State in which, for technical reasons, the terrestrial transmitter
broadcasting to the first State is located.

2. Article 8(2) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November
1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights
related to copyright in the field of intellectual property must be
interpreted as meaning that, for determination of the equitable
remuneration mentioned in that provision,
the broadcasting
company is not entitled unilaterally to deduct from the amount of
the royalty for phonogram use payable in the Member State in
which it is established the amount of the royalty paid or claimed
in the Member State in whose territory the terrestrial transmitter
broadcasting to the first State is located.

(1) OJ C 156 of 12. 06.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), A. La
Pergola, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh,
Judges; M. Poiares
Maduro, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it
ruled:

as

amended

by Commission Regulation

Article 10(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1538/91 of 5
June 1991 introducing detailed rules for implementing Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 1906/90 on certain marketing standards for poul-
trymeat,
(EC) No
1321/2002 of 22 July 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that
(‘kontrollierte
the wording
Aufzucht’) constitutes an indication of the type of farming and for
that reason that article does not allow an undertaking to include that
wording on the labelling of a product falling within the scope of that
regulation.

‘reared under

conditions’

controlled

(1) OJ C 190 of 24.07.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 21 July 2005

in Case C-207/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Novara in Paolo
Vergani v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio di Arona (1)

in Case C-203/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main in Gebrüder Stolle
GmbH & Co. KG v Heidegold Geflügelspezialitäten
GmbH (1)

(Social policy — Equal pay and equal treatment for men and
women — Redundancy payment — Tax treatment deter-
mined by reference to age — Tax advantage)

(Poultrymeat — Marketing standards — Prohibition on
including certain indications concerning the type of farming
on labelling — Regulation (EEC) No 1538/91)

(2005/C 217/39)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(2005/C 217/38)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-203/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main
(Germany), made by decision of 28 April 2004, received at the
Court on 7 May 2004, in the proceedings between Gebrüder
Stolle GmbH & Co. KG and Heidegold Geflügelspezialitäten
GmbH — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas,

In Case C-207/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di
Novara (Italy), made by decision of 26 April 2004, received at
the Court on 10 May 2004, in the proceedings between Paolo
Vergani and Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio di Arona, — the
Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the
Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), K. Schiemann, E. Juhász
and E. Levits,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it ruled: