Case C-519/04 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2006 — David Meca-Medina, Igor Majcen v Commission of the European Communities, Republic of Finland (Appeal — Rules adopted by the International Olympic Committee concerning doping control — Incompatibility with the Community rules on competition and freedom to provide services — Complaint — Rejection)
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), judicial proceedings, performance drugs, rights of the defence, sporting event, sports body

C 224/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2006

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
te Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Uroplasty BV v Inspec-
teur van de Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2006 —
David Meca-Medina, Igor Majcen v Commission of the
European Communities, Republic of Finland

(Case C-514/04) (1)

(Tariff classification — Sterile flakes of polydimethilsiloxane
— Silicone elastomer — Meaning of ‘primary form’ — Medi-
cament — Packaging — Meaning of ‘appliance implanted in
the body’)

(2006/C 224/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uroplasty BV

(Case C-519/04 P) (1)

(Appeal — Rules adopted by the International Olympic
Committee concerning doping control — Incompatibility with
the Community rules on competition and freedom to provide
services — Complaint — Rejection)

(2006/C 224/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: David Meca-Medina, Igor Majcen (represented by: J.-
L. Dupont and M.-A. Lucas, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities (represented by: O. Beynet and A. Bouquet,
Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendants: Republic of Finland (repre-
sented by: T Pynnä, Agent)

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict
Rotterdam

Re:

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Tariff clas-
sification of the product Macroplastic implant — Injectable
sterile suspension of solid particles of silicone elastomer for the
treatment of vesicoureteral (or vesicorenal) reflux

Operative part of the judgment

Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987
on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common
Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No
2388/2000 of 13 October 2000, is to be interpreted as meaning
that a product, such as the polydimethilsiloxane, made up of sterile
flakes, specially developed and intended only to be implanted in the
body for the treatment of a condition and which is packaged at the
time of its presentation to customs in 1 kg bags, is to be regarded as
an appliance to be implanted in the body which must be classified
under heading 9021 of
the Combined Nomenclature. Since the
purpose of such a product is not to replace an organ but to enable a
defective muscle to create connective tissues, it must be classified under
subheading 9021 90 90 of the Combined Nomenclature.

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber) of 30 September 2004 in Case T-313/02
Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission, dismissing as unfounded
an application for annulment of a decision rejecting a
complaint following a proceeding pursuant to Articles 81 EC
and 82 of the EC Treaty — Anti-doping rules

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities of 30 September 2004 in Case T-313/02
Meca-Medina and Majcen v Commission;

2. Dismisses the action under No T-313/02 brought before the
Court of First Instance for annulment of the Commission's decision
of 1 August 2002 rejecting the complaint lodged by Mr Meca-
Medina and Mr Majcen;

3. Orders Mr Meca-Medina and Mr Majcen to pay the costs relating
both to the present proceedings and to the proceedings brought
before the Court of First Instance;

4. Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.

(1) OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.