Case C-315/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Monselice (Italy)) — Lidl Italia Srl v Comune di Arcole (VR) (Directive 2000/13/EC — Labelling of foodstuffs to be delivered as such to the ultimate consumer — Scope of the obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 12 — Compulsory statement of the alcoholic strength by volume for certain alcoholic beverages — Alcoholic beverage produced in a Member State other than that in which the distributor is established — Amaro alle erbe — Actual alcoholic strength by volume lower than that appearing on the label — Overstepping of the tolerance — Administrative fine — Liability of the distributor)
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: distributor, interpretation of the law, labelling, producer's liability

C 331/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

The same is true when the national authorities accept as the transac-
tion value, in accordance with Community law, the price of a sale other
than that made by the Community purchaser. In such cases, ‘buyer’ for
the purposes of Article 32(1)(b) or (c) of the Customs Code must be
understood to mean the buyer who concluded that other sale.

(1) OJ C 228, 11.9.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 November
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice
di pace di Monselice (Italy)) — Lidl Italia Srl v Comune di
Arcole (VR)

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2, 3 and 12 of Directive 2000/13/EC of
the European
Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approxima-
tion of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presen-
tation and advertising of
foodstuffs are to be interpreted as not
precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the
main proceedings, which makes it possible for an operator, established
in that Member State, which distributes a pre-packaged alcoholic
beverage to be delivered as such within the meaning of Article 1 of
that directive, produced by an operator established in another Member
State, to be held liable for an infringement of that provision, estab-
lished by a public authority, resulting from the producer's inaccurate
statement on the product label of the alcoholic strength by volume of
the product and, consequently, to be penalised by an administrative
fine, even where, as the mere distributor, it simply markets the product
as delivered to it by the producer.

(Case C-315/05) (1)

(1) OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.

strength by volume

(Directive 2000/13/EC — Labelling of foodstuffs to be deliv-
ered as such to the ultimate consumer — Scope of the obliga-
tions under Articles 2, 3 and 12 — Compulsory statement of
the alcoholic
certain alcoholic
beverages — Alcoholic beverage produced in a Member State
other than that in which the distributor is established —
‘Amaro alle erbe’ — Actual alcoholic strength by volume
lower than that appearing on the label — Overstepping of the
tolerance — Administrative fine — Liability of the distri-
butor)

for

(2006/C 331/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di pace di Monselice (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lidl Italia Srl

Defendant: Comune di Arcole (VR)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Monse-
lice — Interpretation of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European
the Council of 20 March 2000 on the
Parliament and of
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L
109, p. 29) — Scope of the obligations under Articles 2, 3 and
12 of the directive — Alcoholic beverage produced and pack-
aged in another Member State having an alcohol content lower
than that stated on the label — ‘Amaro alle erbe’

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
Domstolen — Sweden) — Nokia Corp. v Joacim Wärdell

(Case C-316/05) (1)

(Community trade mark — Article 98(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 — Infringement or threatened infringement —
Obligation of a Community trade mark court to issue an order
prohibiting a third party from proceeding with such acts —
Definition of ‘special reasons’ for not issuing such a prohibi-
tion — Obligation of a Community trade mark court to take
such measures as are aimed at ensuring that such a prohibi-
tion is complied with — National legislation laying down a
general prohibition of infringement or threatened infringe-
ment coupled with penalties)

(2006/C 331/24)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta Domstolen (Sweden)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nokia Corp.

Defendant: Joacim Wärdell