Case C-473/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) lodged on 25 October 2007 — Association Nationale pour la Protection des Eaux et Rivières — TOS, Association OABA v Ministère de l'écologie, du développement et de l'aménagement durables — Intervener: Association France Nature Environnement
Date: 2007-10-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, air quality, intensive livestock farming, interpretation of the law, nitrogen, pollution control measures, poultry

C 22/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.1.2008

Questions referred

1. Is the review of macro-economic conditions referred to in
Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December
1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclu-
sion in the scope of national health insurance systems (1) to
be understood as meaning only review as to whether health-
care expenditure is manageable, or must it also extend to
macro-economic conditions in the pharmaceutical industry
sector whose products are liable to be made subject to a
price freeze?

2. May the review of macro-economic conditions referred to in
Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December
1988, cited above, be based on a general trend or trends,
such as, for example, ensuring balance in healthcare, or must
it be based on more specific criteria?

(1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 8.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État
(Belgium)
lodged on 24 October 2007 — Association
Générale de l'Industrie du Médicament ASBL, Bayer SA,
Pfizer SA, Servier Benelux SA, Sanofi-Aventis Belgium SA
v Belgian State

must Article 4(1) of
directly applicable in the domestic legal systems of
Member States?

that directive be considered to be
the

2. May Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December
1988 be interpreted as meaning that the resumption for one
year, after an absence of 18 months, of a general price freeze
in respect of refundable medicinal products which had lasted
eight years exempts the Member State from carrying out a
review, when the freeze is resumed, of the macro-economic
conditions affected by that freeze?

3. Is the review of macro-economic conditions referred to in
Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December
1988, cited above, to be understood as meaning only review
as to whether healthcare expenditure is manageable, or must
it also extend to macro-economic conditions in the pharma-
ceutical industry sector whose products are liable to be made
subject to a price freeze?

4. May the review of macro-economic conditions referred to in
Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December
1988, cited above, be based on a general trend or trends,
such as, for example, ensuring balance in healthcare, or must
it be based on more specific criteria?

(1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 8.

(Case C-472/07)

(2008/C 22/41)

Language of the case: French

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat
lodged on 25 October 2007 — Association
(France)
Nationale pour la Protection des Eaux et Rivières — TOS,
Association OABA v Ministère de l'écologie, du développe-
l'aménagement durables — Intervener:
ment

et de
Association France Nature Environnement

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

(Case C-473/07)

(2008/C 22/42)

Language of the case: French

Applicants: Association Générale de l'Industrie du Médicament
ASBL, Bayer SA, Pfizer SA, Servier Benelux SA, Sanofi-Aventis
Belgium SA

Referring court

Conseil d'Etat

Defendant: Belgian State

Questions referred

Parties to the main proceedings

1. Since the period for transposition of Council Directive of
21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures
regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use
and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance
systems (89/105/EEC) (1) expired on 31 December 1989,

Applicants: Association Nationale pour la Protection des Eaux et
Rivières — TOS, Association OABA

Defendant: Ministère de l'écologie, du développement et de
l'aménagement durables

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/23

Questions referred

Pleas in law and main arguments

Must paragraph 6.6(a) of Annex I to Directive 96/61/EC (1),
which applies to installations for the intensive rearing of poultry
with more than 40 000 places, be interpreted:

The transitional period accorded to the Republic of Poland for
implementing the directive expired on 1 January 2006.

1. as including within its scope quails, partridges and pigeons;

(1) OJ L 283 of 3.10.2003, p. 51.

and, if so,

2. as authorising a mechanism for calculating authorisation
thresholds on the basis of a system of ‘animal-equivalents’,
which gives weighting to the number of animals per place
according to species so that account may be taken of the
amount of nitrogen actually excreted by the various species?

(1) Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning inte-
grated pollution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
Berlin (Germany) lodged on 29 October 2007 — M.C.O.
Congres v suxess GmbH

(Case C-476/07)

(2008/C 22/44)

Language of the case: German

Action brought on 25 October 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-475/07)

Referring court

Landgericht Berlin

(2008/C 22/43)

Parties to the main proceedings

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by W. Mölls and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

— declare that, by reason of the failure to adapt by 1 January
2006 its system of taxation of electricity to the requirements
of Article 21(5) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of
27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework
for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1), the
Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive;

— order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

Applicant: M.C.O. Congres

Defendant: suxess GmbH

Question referred

Is Article 9(2)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes (1), last amended by Directive
1999/85/EC of 22 October 1999 (OJ 1999 L 277, p. 34), to be
interpreted as meaning that if services are supplied in connec-
tion with sports and cultural services under Article 259 A 4(a)
of the Code Général des Impôts (General Tax Code) in the form
of the grant to the person to whom the services are supplied of
permission to advertise on surfaces, in premises where events
take place and on t-shirts, then they are advertising services
within the meaning of Article 9(2) of Sixth Council Direc-
tive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 with the result that the
services are deemed to have been supplied at the place where
the person to whom the services have been supplied has his
place of business?

(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.