Case C-317/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Köln by order of that court of 8 August 2005 in G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & Co. KG v Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss; joined parties: (1) AOK-Bundesverband KdöR, (2) IKK-Bundesverband, (3) Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen, (4) Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, (5) Verband der Angestellten-Krankenkassen e.V., (6) AEV — Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen-Verband e.V., (7) Bundesknappschaft, (8) Seekrankenkasse, (9) Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Security
Date: 2005-11-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, fixing of prices, health costs, interpretation of the law, medicinal product, pharmaceutical industry, social security

C 281/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.11.2005

3. Does the second paragraph of Article 90 of the Treaty estab-
lishing the European Community, under which no Member
State may impose on the products of other Member States
any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect
protection to other products, allow a Member State to
impose on second-hand cars imported from other Member
States excise duty at a variable rate depending on the vehi-
cle's age and engine capacity, which is laid down in the
Polish implementing order (Article 7 of the Rozporządzenie
Ministra Finansów w Sprawie Obniżenia Stawek Podatku
Akcyzowego (Order of
the Minister for Finance on the
lowering of the rates of excise duty) of 22 April 2004 —
Dziennik Ustaw No 87, heading 825, as amended), where the
duty on the sale of second-hand cars in Poland is calculated
according to a similar formula before their initial registra-
tion in Poland and this duty subsequently affects the price
of that car when it is resold?

4. Does Article 28 of the Treaty establishing the European
Community, under which quantitative
restrictions on
imports and all measures having equivalent effect are to be
prohibited between Member States — and also having
regard to Article 3(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25
February 1992 on the general arrangements for products
subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and
monitoring of such products — prohibit a Member State
from maintaining in force Article 81 of the Polish Law on
Excise Duty, under which persons effecting intra-Com-
munity acquisition of passenger cars not
registered in
Poland in accordance with the provisions relating to road
traffic are required, after importing them into Poland, to
submit a simplified declaration to the head of the relevant
customs office within five days of the intra-Community
acquisition?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del
Giudice di Pace di Monselice by order of that court of 12
July 2005 in LIDL Italia Srl v Comune di Arcole (VR)

1. Must Directive 2000/13/EC (1) of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation
of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
presentation and advertising of foodstuffs be interpreted as
meaning, in respect of pre-packaged foodstuffs under Article
1 thereof, that the obligations provided for therein, and in
particular those in Articles 2, 3 and 12, are imposed only
on the producer of the pre-packaged food product?

2. If the answer to the first question is affirmative, must Arti-
cles 2, 3 and 12 of Directive 2000/13/EC be interpreted as
located
precluding the possibility that a mere distributor,
within a Member State, of a foodstuff pre-packaged (as
defined in Article 1 of Directive 2000/13/EC) by a trader in
another Member State, may be held liable for an infringe-
ment alleged by a public authority involving a discrepancy
between the value (in this case percentage of alcohol
content) stated on the label by the producer of the pre-pack-
aged foodstuff, and may thus be penalised, even if that
distributor simply markets the foodstuff in the form in
which it is delivered by the producer of the food product
itself?

(1) OJ L 109 of 06.05.2000, p. 29.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
Köln by order of that court of 8 August 2005 in G. Pohl-
Boskamp GmbH & Co. KG v Gemeinsamer Bundes-
ausschuss; joined parties: (1) AOK-Bundesverband KdöR,
(2) IKK-Bundesverband, (3) Bundesverband der Betriebs-
krankenkassen,
(4) Bundesverband der landwirtschaftli-
chen Krankenkassen, (5) Verband der Angestellten-Kran-
kenkassen e.V., (6) AEV — Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen-Verband
e.V.,
(9)
Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Federal
Ministry of Health and Social Security

(7) Bundesknappschaft,

(8) Seekrankenkasse,

(Case C-315/05)

(Case C-317/05)

(2005/C 281/11)

(2005/C 281/12)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace
di Monselice (Italy) of 12 July 2005, received at the Court
Registry on 12 August 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between LIDL Italia Srl and Comune di Arcole
(VR) on the following questions:

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Köln (Social
Court, Cologne) (Germany) of 8 August 2005, received at the
Court Registry on 17 August 2005, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings between G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & Co. KG

12.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/7

joined parties:

and Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss;
(1) AOK-
Bundesverband KdöR, (2) IKK-Bundesverband, (3) Bundesver-
band der Betriebskrankenkassen, (4) Bundesverband der land-
wirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen, (5) Verband der Angestellten-
Krankenkassen e.V., (6) AEV — Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen-Verband
e.V.
(9) Federal
Republic of Germany, represented by the Federal Ministry of
Health and Social Security, on the following questions:

(7) Bundesknappschaft,

(8) Seekrankenkasse,

1. Is Council Directive 89/105/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988
relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclu-
sion in the scope of national health insurance systems ('the
transparency directive') to be interpreted as precluding rules
of a Member State which, following the exclusion of non-
prescription medicinal products from the range of benefits
provided by the national health system, empower an
authority under that system to adopt rules derogating from
that exclusion in respect of certain medicines without
making provision for a procedure under Article 6(1), second
sentence, and 6(2) of the transparency directive?

2. Is Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 to be inter-
preted as granting the manufacturers of
the medicinal
products referred to in point 1 above a subjective right vis-
à-vis the public authorities, in particular a right to a deci-
sion, containing a statement of reasons and information as
to the available avenues of appeal, on the inclusion of one
of their medicinal products on a list of the type mentioned
above, even though the rules of the Member State make no
provision for any corresponding decision-making or appeal
procedures?

(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Darmstadt by order of that court of 17 August
2005 in Ismail Derin v Landkreis Darmstadt-Dieburg

(Case C-325/05)

(2005/C 281/13)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht Darm-
stadt of 17 August 2005, received at the Court Registry on 26
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
August 2005,

between Ismail Derin and Landkreis Darmstadt-Dieburg on the
following questions:

1. Does a Turkish national who, as a child, joined his parents
who were employed as workers in the Federal Republic of
Germany, and lived with them as a family, lose his right of
residence derived from the right under the second indent of
the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
EEC/Turkey Association Council (‘Decision No 1/80’) to free
access to any paid employment — apart from in cases
under Article 14 of Decision No 1/80 or where he leaves
legitimate reason for a
the host Member State without
significant period of time — also where he has attained the
age of 21 and no longer lives with or is maintained by his
parents?

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

2 Notwithstanding the loss of his legal status under the
second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision
No 1/80, does that Turkish national enjoy special protection
against expulsion under Article 14 of Decision No 1/80
where, after having ceased to live with his parents as a
family, he was employed from time to time but has not
the legal status conferred by
acquired in his own right
Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 by virtue of being a
worker and for a number of years has worked exclusively
on a self-employed basis?

Appeal brought on 30 August 2005 by SGL Carbon AG
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Second Chamber) of 15 June
2005 in Joined Cases T-71/03,T-74/03, T-87/03 and T-91/03
Tokai and Others v Commission of the European Commu-
nities, in respect of Case T-91/03

(Case C-328/05 P)

(2005/C 281/14)

(Language of the case: German)

On 30 August 2005, SGL Carbon AG, represented by Martin
Klusmann and Frederik Wiemer, of Freshfields Bruckhaus
Deringer, Feldmühleplatz 1, D-40008 Düsseldorf, brought an
appeal before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2005 in
Joined Cases T-71/03, T-74/03, T-87/03 and T-91/03 Tokai and
Others v Commission of the European Communities, in respect of
Case T-91/03.