Case C-84/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staat der Nederlanden v Antroposana, Patiëntenvereniging voor Antroposofische Gezondheidszorg, Nederlandse Vereniging van Antroposofische Artsen, Weleda Nederland NV, Wala Nederland NV, (Community code relating to medicinal products for human use — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Registration and marketing authorisation — Anthroposophic medicinal products)
Date: 2007-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, interpretation of the law, market approval, medicinal product, pharmaceutical legislation

C 269/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.11.2007

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos
and K. Boskovits, Agents)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staat der Nederlanden

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
of Article 90 EC — Discriminatory taxation on imported
second-hand cars

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

second-hand vehicles

1) Declares that, by applying a single criterion of depreciation, based
for the purpose of determining the
on the age of the vehicles,
taxable value of
imported from another
Member State into Greek territory in order to establish the registra-
tion tax, and by adopting a reduction in value of 7 % for vehicles
between 6 and 12 months old or 14 % for vehicles more than a
year old, which does not ensure that the tax due does not exceed,
even if only in certain cases, the amount of the residual tax incor-
porated in the value of similar second-hand vehicles already regis-
tered in the national territory, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 90 EC;

2) Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3) Orders the Hellenic Republic and the Commission to bear their

own costs.

Antroposana,

Defendants:
voor
Antroposofische Gezondheidszorg, Nederlandse Vereniging van
Antroposofische Artsen, Weleda Nederland NV, Wala Nederland
NV

Patiëntenvereniging

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpreta-
tion of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code
relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311,
p. 67) — Marketing authorisation for anthroposophic medicinal
products which are not homeopathic medicinal products within
the meaning of Chapter 2 of Title III of the directive — National
legislation which makes anthroposophic medicinal products
subject to the conditions set out in Chapter 1 of Title III of the
directive — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC.

Operative part of the judgment

Anthroposophic medicinal products may be marketed only on condition
that they have been authorised under one of the procedures referred to
in Article 6 of Directive 2001/83 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to
medicinal products for human use.

(1) OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

(1) OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge
Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staat der
Nederlanden v Antroposana, Patiëntenvereniging voor
Antroposofische Gezondheidszorg, Nederlandse Vereniging
van Antroposofische Artsen, Weleda Nederland NV, Wala
Nederland NV,

(Case C-84/06) (1)

(Community code relating to medicinal products for human
use — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Registration and
authorisation — Anthroposophic medicinal
marketing

products)

(2007/C 269/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September
a preliminary ruling from the
2007 (reference for
Tampereen käräjäoikeus — Finland) — Sari Kiiski v
Tampereen kaupunki

(Case C-116/06) (1)

(Equal treatment for men and women — Protection of preg-
nant employees — Article 2 of Directive 76/207/EEC —
Right to maternity leave — Articles 8 and 11 of Directive
92/85/EEC — Effect on the right to obtain an alteration of
the duration of ‘child-care leave’)

(2007/C 269/24)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Tampereen käräjäoikeus