Case C-111/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias (Spain) lodged on 28 February 2007 — José Manuel Blanco Pérez, Maria del Pilar Chao Gómez v Principado de Asturias
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, interpretation of the law, pharmacy, right of establishment

C 95/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

d) it does not take account of available scientific and tech-
nical data, of the environmental conditions in the various
regions of the Community, or of the benefits or costs
which arise from the prohibition which it establishes;

e) it is disproportionate to the objective being pursued;

— in the alternative, reduce the amount of those fines;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs relating to
the interim proceedings and the main proceedings before
the Court of First Instance, as well as the proceedings before
the Court of Justice.

f) it

is discriminatory

very different
geographic, economic and social situations in the same
fashion;

treats

since

it

g) it does not establish any exemption for small-time fish-
ermen who fish with devices such as the ‘thonaille’, which,
apart from the fact that it is traditional in the Mediterra-
nean, is vital for that part of the population who practise
it, and is, moreover, very selective?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 894/97 of 29 April 1997 laying down
certain technical measures for conservation of fishery resources (OJ L
1997 132, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998, amending
Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain technical measures
for conservation of fishery resources (OJ L 1998 171, p. 1).

Appeal brought on 27 February 2007 by Fédération natio-
nale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles (FNSEA), Fédéra-
tion nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération nationale des
producteurs de lait (FNPL) and Jeunes agriculteurs (JA)
the judgment delivered by the Court of First
against
Instance (First Chamber) on 13 December 2006 in Joined
Cases T-217/03 and T-245/03 FNCBV and Others v
Commission

(Case C-110/07 P)

(2007/C 95/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agri-
coles (FNSEA), Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), Fédération
nationale des producteurs de lait (FNPL), Jeunes agriculteurs (JA)
(represented by: V. Ledoux and B. Néouze, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Fédération nationale de la coop-
ération bétail et viande (FNCBV), Commission of the European
Communities, French Republic

Forms of Order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

that

the appellants assert

The appellants rely on four pleas in law in support of their
appeal. Firstly,
the Court of First
Instance misconstrued the evidence submitted for its considera-
tion in that it omitted to take into account the two essential
pieces of evidence demonstrating that
the agreement of
24 October 2001 did not extend beyond 30 November 2001.
Secondly, the appellants allege that the Court of First Instance
misapplied Community law, as well as the consistent case-law of
the Court, in holding that the Commission had not infringed
the rights of the defence in failing to point out, in the statement
of objections, that it was going to calculate the sum of the fines
taking into account the cumulative turnover of the members of
the appellant federations. Thirdly, they allege infringement of
Article 15(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 17/62. In order to
conclude that the fines imposed did not exceed the ceiling of
10 % of turnover, laid down in that article, the Court of First
Instance took into account
the
members of those federations, without the precise conditions
and objectives laid down in the case-law being fulfilled. Finally,
by their fourth plea in law, the appellants allege an infringement
of the principle of non bis in idem, as well as a breach of the
principle of proportionality, in that the Court of First Instance
imposed, on each of the federations, a separate fine based on
the cumulative turnover of members common to those federa-
tions. According to the appellants,
in the present case only
1 federation can have a penalty imposed upon it, which takes
into account the cumulative financial capacity of the common
members of the appellant federations.

the cumulative turnover of

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Superior de Justicia de Asturias
lodged on
28 February 2007 — José Manuel Blanco Pérez, Maria del
Pilar Chao Gómez v Principado de Asturias

(Spain)

(Case C-111/07)

(2007/C 95/52)

Language of the case: Spanish

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of

13 December 2006;

Referring court

— state that fines should not be imposed on the appellant

federations;

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/29

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants:
Gómez

José Manuel Blanco Pérez, Maria del Pilar Chao

Defendant: Principado de Asturias

Question referred

Should Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Decree 72/2001 of 19 July
regulating Pharmacies and Pharmaceutical Dispensaries and the
First Section of Chapter II of said Decree, pursuant to the provi-
sions of Article 103 of Law 14/1986 (General Health) and of
Article 88 of Law 25/1990 of 20 December (on medicinal
products), be considered to be in breach of Article 43 of the
Treaty establishing the European [Community]?

Action brought on 27 February 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Czech Republic

(Case C-115/07)

(2007/C 95/54)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by B. Stromsky and M. Šimerdová, Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

Action brought on 27 February 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Czech Republic

(Case C-114/07)

(2007/C 95/53)

Language of the case: Czech

the European Parliament and of

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2004/27/EC (1) of
the
Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC
on the Community code relating to medicinal products for
human use, or in any event by not communicating such
measures to the Commission, the Czech Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;

— order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by B. Stromsky and M. Šimerdová, Agents)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Defendant: Czech Republic

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

the European Parliament and of

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2004/24/EC (1) of
the
Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional
herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the
Community code relating to medicinal products for human
use, or in any event by not communicating such measures
to the Commission, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

— order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national
law expired on 30 October 2005.

(1) OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34.

Action brought on 27 February 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Czech Republic

(Case C-116/07)

(2007/C 95/55)

Language of the case: Czech

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national
law expired on 30 October 2005.

Parties

(1) OJ 2004 L 136, p. 85.

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by B. Stromsky and M. Šimerdová, Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic