Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  9 February 2006  in Case C-127/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division in Declan O'Byrne v Sanofi Pasteur MSD Ltd, Sanofi Pasteur SA (Directive 85/374/EEC — Liability for defective products — Definition of  putting into circulation  of the product — Supply by the producer to a wholly owned subsidiary)
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, defective product, interpretation of the law, judicial proceedings, producer's liability

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 9 February 2006

in Joined Cases C-23/04 to C-25/04: Reference for a preli-
minary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon in
Sfakianakis AEVE v Elliniko Dimosio (1)

taken by the customs authorities of the State of import before the
definitive result of actions brought against the findings of the
subsequent verification have been communicated to them, when the
decisions of the authorities of the State of export which initially
issued the EUR.1 certificates have not been revoked or annulled.

3. The answer to the first three questions is not affected by the fact
that neither the Greek customs authorities nor the Hungarian
customs
the Association
Committee pursuant to Article 33 of Protocol No 4, as amended
by Decision 3/96.

convocation of

authorities

sought

(Association Agreement EEC-Hungary — Obligation of
mutual assistance between customs authorities — Post-clear-
ance recovery of import duties following revocation in the
State of export of the movement)

(1) OJ C 71, 20.03.2004.
OJ C 85, 03.04.2004.

(2006/C 86/08)

(Language of the case: Greek)

In Joined Cases C-23/04 to C-25/04: reference for a preliminary
ruling under Article 234 EC from the Diikitiko Protodikio
Athinon (Greece), made by decision of 30 September 2003,
received at the Court on 26 January 2004, in the proceedings
between Sfakianakis AEVE and Elliniko Dimosio — the Court
(Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, Presi-
dent of
J. Makarczyk, R. Silva de Lapuerta
(Rapporteur), P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
gave a judgment on 9 February 2006, in which it ruled:

the Chamber,

1. Articles 31(2) and 32 of Protocol 4 to the Europe Agreement
establishing an association between the European Communities
and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of
Hungary, of the other part, as amended by Decision No 3/96 of
the Association Council between the European Communities and
their Member States, of
the one part, and the Republic of
Hungary, of the other part, of 28 December 1996, are to be
interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities of the State of
import are bound to take account of judicial decisions delivered in
the State of export on actions brought against the results of verifi-
cation of the validity of goods movement certificates conducted by
the customs authorities of the State of export, once they have been
informed of the existence of those actions and the content of those
decisions, regardless of whether the verification of the validity of
the movement certificates was carried out at the request of the
customs authorities of the State of import.

2. The effectiveness of the abolition of the imposition of customs
duties under the Europe Agreement establishing an association
between the European Communities and their Member States, of
the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part,
concluded and approved by the decision of the Council and the
Commission of 13 December 1993, precludes administrative deci-
sions imposing the payment of customs duties, taxes and penalties

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 9 February 2006

in Case C-127/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's
Bench Division in Declan O'Byrne v Sanofi Pasteur MSD
Ltd, Sanofi Pasteur SA (1)

(Directive 85/374/EEC — Liability for defective products —
Definition of ‘putting into circulation’ of the product —
Supply by the producer to a wholly owned subsidiary)

(2006/C 86/09)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-127/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and
Wales, Queen's Bench Division (United Kingdom), made by
decision of 18 November 2003, received at the Court on 8
March 2004, in the proceedings between Declan O'Byrne and
Sanofi Pasteur MSD Ltd, formerly Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd,
Sanofi Pasteur SA, formerly Aventis Pasteur SA, — the Court
(First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of
Juhász and M.
the Chamber, K. Schiemann, K. Lenaerts, E.
Ilešič,
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M. Ferreira,
Principal Administrator, for the, for the Registrar, gave a judg-
ment on 9 February 2006, in which it ruled:

C 86/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2006

1. Article 11 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on
the approximation of
the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective
products, is to be interpreted as meaning that a product is put
into circulation when it is taken out of the manufacturing process
operated by the producer and enters a marketing process in the
form in which it is offered to the public in order to be used or
consumed.

2. When an action is brought against a company mistakenly consid-
ered to be the producer of a product whereas, in reality, it was
manufactured by another company, it is as a rule for national law
to determine the conditions in accordance with which one party
may be substituted for another in the context of such an action. A
national court examining the conditions governing such a substi-
tution must, however, ensure that due regard is had to the personal
scope of Directive 85/374, as established by Articles 1 and 3
thereof.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.04.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 16 February 2006

in Case C-215/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Østre Landsret in Marius Pedersen A/S v Miljøstyr-
elsen (1)

(Waste — Transfer of waste — Waste intended for recovery
operations — Concept of ‘notifier’ — Notifier's obligations)

(2006/C 86/10)

(Language of the case: Danish)

In Case C-215/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Østre Landsret (Denmark), made by
decision of 14 May 2004, received at the Court on 21 May
2004, in the proceedings between Marius Pedersen A/S and
Miljøstyrelsen — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P.

Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), N.
Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and E. Levits, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, gave a
judgment on 16 February 2006, the operative part of which is
as follows:

1. The phrase ‘where this is not possible’ in Article 2(g)(ii) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the super-
vision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of
the European Community must be interpreted as meaning that the
simple fact that a person is a licensed collector does not confer on
him the status of notifier of a shipment of waste for recovery.
However, the situation that the producer of the waste is unknown
or that the number of waste producers is so great and the indivi-
dual contribution of each of them so small that it would be unrea-
sonable for each individually to be required to notify the transport
of the waste may justify the licensed collector being considered as
the notifier of a shipment of waste for recovery;

2. The competent authority of dispatch is entitled, pursuant to Article
7(2) and the first indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation No
259/93, to object to a shipment of waste in the absence of infor-
mation on the conditions of recovery of that waste in the State of
destination. However, the notifier cannot be required to prove that
the recovery in the State of destination will be equivalent to that
required by the rules in the State of dispatch;

3. The first indent of Article 6(5) of Regulation No 259/93 must be
interpreted as meaning that the obligation to supply information
relating to the composition of the waste is not satisfied by the
notifier declaring a category of waste under the heading ‘electronic
scrap’;

4. The period in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 259/93 begins to
run when the competent authorities of the State of destination
have sent the acknowledgement of receipt of the notification, irre-
spective of the fact that the competent authorities of the State of
dispatch do not consider that they have received all of the informa-
tion set out in Article 6(5) of that regulation. The effect of the
expiry of that time-limit is that the competent authorities can no
longer raise objections to the shipment or request additional infor-
mation from the notifier.

(1) OJ C 190, 24.7.2004.