Case C-504/06: Action brought on 13 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
Date: 2007-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, building industry, national implementing measure, occupational safety, public health, public works, safety standard

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/11

3. Is it contrary to Articles 43 and/or 49 of the EC Treaty for
the broadcasting of advertisements which provide informa-
tion on medical and surgical
treatments of an aesthetic
nature in private health care establishments, duly authorised
for that purpose, to be made subject to additional prior
authorisation by the local authorities and/or professional
associations?

4. By adopting a code of conduct which lays down limits on
the advertising of
the health care professions and by
construing the legislation in force concerning the advertising
of medical services in a manner which considerably restricts
the right of doctors to advertise their own activities, both
measures being binding on all doctors, have the National
Federation of Associations of Doctors, Surgeons and Dentists
group practices
(FNOMCeO)
restricted competition beyond what is permitted under the
relevant national legislation and in breach of Article 81(1)
EC?

associations of

and the

5. In any event,

is the interpretative practice adopted by the
FNOMCeO incompatible with Articles 3(g), 4, 98, 10, 81
and, possibly, Article 86 of the EC Treaty in so far as the
practice is permitted by a national law which requires the
appropriate provincial associations to verify the transparency
and accuracy of advertisements by doctors without indicating
the criteria and procedures to be applied in exercising that
authority?

— annul the Judgment of the Court of First Instance in so far
as it rejects GSK's claim for annulment of Article 1 of the
contested Decision, or take such other action as justice may
require.

— award GSK the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the contested judgment should be
annulled, in so far as it rejects GSK's claim for annulment of
article 1 of the contested decision on the following grounds:

— The Court of First Instance erred in reaching the conclusion
that the General Sales Conditions produce ap0preciable anti-
competitive effects and thus violate Article 81(1) EC, failing
appropriately to assess their actual
legal and economic
context. Furthermore, (i) the intra-brand price competition
that the Court refers to in its Judgment is itself the result of
a market distortion, and (ii) the Court relied on alleged
marginal advantages that
final consumers in importing
countries could have derived from the participation of the
Spanish wholesalers in intra-brand competition.

— The Court lacked the competence to draw factual conclu-
sions concerning the possible effect upon patients and those
who paid for their medicines, given the absence of a basis
for such conclusions in the contested Commission decision.

Appeal brought on 11 December 2006 by GlaxoSmithKline
Services Unlimited (GSK), anciennement Glaxo Wellcome
plc against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on
27 September 2006 in Case T-168/01: GlaxoSmithKline
the European
Services Unlimited v Commission of

Communities

(Case C-501/06 P)

(2007/C 42/18)

Action brought on 13 December 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-504/06)

(2007/C 42/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and I. Kaufmann-Bühler, Agents)

Appellant: GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited, anciennement
Glaxo Wellcome plc (represented by: I. Forrester QC, J. Venit,
member of the New York Bar, S. Martínez Lage, abogado, A.
Komninos, Δικηγόρος, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Forms of order sought

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities, European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical
Companies (EAEPC), Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Impor-
teure eV, Spain Pharma, SA, Asociación de exportadores espa-
ñoles de productos farmacéuticos (Aseprofar)

Form of order sought

— declare that, by having failed to transpose correctly in Italian
law Article 3(1) of Council Directive 92/57/EEC (1) of
24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety
and health requirements at temporary or mobile construc-
tion sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of
Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC (2)),
Italian
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that direc-
tive;

the

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

C 42/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.2.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Italian law, constructions sites which correspond to less
than 200 man-days and which do not involve work coming
within the scope of Annex II to the Directive are covered solely
by the coordination provisions contained in Article 7 of Decree
No 626/1994. That article, however,
imposes only a general
obligation of cooperation and coordination on employers
which, within the company or producer unit, assign work to
contracting undertakings or to self-employed persons. Accord-
ingly, it is not possible to conclude that the precise and detailed
provisions of Directive 92/57/EEC relating to the coordination
required during the drafting and execution phases of a project
can be regarded as being implemented by the article of the
Decree in question.

(1) OJ 1992 L 245, p. 6.
(2) OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione
tributaria regionale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 12 June
2006 — Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di
Genova v Euricom SpA

(Case C-505/06)

(2007/C 42/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

the related implementing rules laid down in Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 (1), govern in any case the question whether the
products imported to make up for the products previously
exported as originating in Italy are to be regarded for
customs purposes as Community goods, and the question
whether they benefit accordingly from an exemption from
import duties, or do those provisions not apply in cases
where that operation — in respect of the products at issue,
as described in the preamble — concerns prior exports to
countries with which the European Community has entered
into related Agreements?

3. In the present case, does the fact

that Article [115](3),
referred to above, provides that the imported replacement
goods are to acquire the customs status of the prior-exported
Community goods have any effect on the operation in prac-
tice, in particular, on the Community origins of the prior-
exported Italian rice? If so, what is the relationship between
the customs regime of inward processing arrangements and
the rules of origin laid down in the Community Customs
Code and the Agreements with the CEECs?

4. In so far as Article 15(2) of the Agreements between the
European Community and the CEECs establishes that the
prohibition on refunds of customs duties relating to non-
Community raw materials used in the manufacture of
products exported with a EUR 1 certificate of origin (issued
by a Community customs authority) does not apply if those
products are instead retained for home use, must that provi-
sion be interpreted in such a way as to render Article 216 of
the Community Customs Code redundant?

(1) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 18 December 2006 by PTV Planung
Transport Verkehr AG against the judgment delivered on
10 October 2006 in Case T-302/03 PTV Planung Transport
Verkehr AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Applicant: Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova

(Case C-512/06 P)

Defendant: Euricom SpA

Questions referred

1. On a proper construction of Article 216 of the Community
Customs Code, does that provision apply exclusively to
products obtained under the inward processing procedure
which incorporate non-Community goods, or does it form
the basis for a customs debt quite separate from other such
debts, justified by the need to avoid granting double relief
from customs duty?

2. In the context of an operation under the inward processing
arrangements, carried out
in accordance with the prior
export equivalence procedure (EX-IM), do Articles 115(1)
and 115(3) of the Community Customs Code, together with

(2007/C 42/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG (represented by:
Dr. F. Nielsen, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market