Case C-167/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 — Ermioni Komninou, Grigorios Ntokos, Donatos Pappas, Vassileios Pappas, Aristeidis Pappas, Eleftheria Pappa, Lamprini Pappa, Eirini Pappa, Alexandra Ntokou, Fotios Dimitriou, Zoï Dimitriou, Petros Bolossis, Despoina Bolossi and Konstantinos Bolossis, Thomas Bolossis v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Complaint under Article 226 EC — Treatment of complainants by the Commission — Principles of sound administration, legitimate expectations and legal certainty — Scope — Article 21 EC — Right of complaint — Scope of the Ombudsman's findings)
Date: 2007-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), complaint to the Commission, indemnification, infringement of EU law, water treatment

22.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/13

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ludwigs-Apotheke München Internationale Apotheke

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October
2007 — Ermioni Komninou, Grigorios Ntokos, Donatos
Pappas, Vassileios Pappas, Aristeidis Pappas, Eleftheria
Pappa, Lamprini Pappa, Eirini Pappa, Alexandra Ntokou,
Fotios Dimitriou, Zoï Dimitriou, Petros Bolossis, Despoina
Bolossi and Konstantinos Bolossis, Thomas Bolossis v
Commission of the European Communities

Defendant: Juers Pharma Import-Export GmbH

(Case C-167/06 P) (1)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Hamburg —
Interpretation of the third indent of Article 86(2) of Directive
2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medic-
inal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), as
amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament
and of
the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive
2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal
products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34) — Scope of
application — National rules prohibiting an importer from
sending pharmacies price lists of medicinal products which,
although not authorised on the national market, may even so be
imported

Operative part of the judgment

A prohibition on advertising such as that laid down by Paragraph 8 of
the Law on the advertising of medicines (Heilmittelwerbegesetz) must
be assessed in the light not of the provisions on advertising of Directive
2001/83/EC of
the Council of
the European Parliament and of
6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal
products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, but of
Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and Articles 11 and 13 of the Agreement
on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992. Article 28 EC and
Article 11 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area preclude
such a prohibition, in so far as it applies to the distribution to phar-
macists of lists of non-approved medicinal products, the importation of
which from another Member State or a non-Member State which is a
party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area is authorised
only on an exceptional basis, which contain no information other than
that concerning the trade name, packaging size, dose and price of those
medicinal products.

(1) OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.

(Appeal — Non-contractual
liability of the Community —
Complaint under Article 226 EC — Treatment of complai-
nants by the Commission — Principles of sound administra-
tion, legitimate expectations and legal certainty — Scope —
the
Article 21 EC — Right of complaint — Scope of

Ombudsman's findings)

(2007/C 315/21)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellants: Ermioni Komninou, Grigorios Ntokos, Donatos
Pappas, Vassileios Pappas, Aristeidis Pappas, Eleftheria Pappa,
Fotios
Lamprini Pappa, Eirini Pappa, Alexandra Ntokou,
Dimitriou, Zoï Dimitriou, Petros Bolossis, Despoina Bolossi and
Konstantinos Bolossis, Thomas Bolossis (represented by: G.
Dellis and G. Adonakopoulos, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities (represented by: Konstantinidis, Agent)

the European

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance
(Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2006, Komninou and Others v
Commission (T-42/04),
in which the Court dismissed as
unfounded an application for compensation for the non-mate-
rial damage allegedly suffered by the applicants following the
Commission's treatment of their complaint concerning Com-
munity financing of a biological sewage treatment plant
in
Preveza in Greece

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities of 13 January 2006, Komninou and Others v
Commission (T-42/04), in so far as the Court failed to rule on the
plea alleging breach of Article 21(2) and (3) EC;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

C 315/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.12.2007

3. Dismisses the application before the Court of First Instance of the
in so far as it is based on a breach of

European Communities,
Article 21(2) and (3) EC;

4. Orders Ermioni Komninou, Grigorios Ntokos, Donatos Pappas,
Vassileios Pappas, Aristeidis Pappas, Eleftheria Pappa, Lamprini
Pappa, Eirini Pappa, Alexandra Ntokou, Fotios Dimitriou, Zoï
Dimitriou, Petros Bolossis, Despoina Bolossi and Konstantinos
Bolossis, Thomas Bolossis to pay the costs at first instance. The
costs of the proceedings at first instance leading to the order of the
Court of First of the European Communities of 13 January 2006,
Komninou and Others v Commission (T-42/04), shall be borne in
the manner set out in paragraph 2 of the operative part of that
order.

non-member country with which no agreement on preferential
tariff treatment is in force

Operative part of the judgment

1) Article 216 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as
amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, applies to
the inward processing operations referred to in Article 115(1)(b) of
that regulation in which the compensating products have been
exported outside the European Community prior to importation of
import goods;

(1) OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 October
2007 (reference
a preliminary ruling from the
Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova (Italy)) —
Agrover Srl v Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di
Genova

for

(Case C-173/06) (1)

(Community Customs Code — Inward processing — Associa-
tion agreement — Prior exportation of rice to a non-member
country bound by a preferential
customs agreement —
Article 216 of the Customs Code — Subsequent recovery of
import duties — Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code)

(2007/C 315/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agrover Srl

Defendant: Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria regionale di
Genova — Interpretation of Articles 216 and 220 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing
the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) —
Rice exported under the inward processing procedure to a non-
member country with which an agreement on preferential
tariff treatment is in force — Application of customs duties at
the time of importation of the compensating product from a

in the accounts of

import duties, pursuant

2) Where, at the time of discharge of an inward processing operation
(suspension system) with equivalent compensation and prior expor-
tation, the competent authorities have not contested, on the basis of
Article 216 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regu-
lation No 2700/2000, the exemption from import duties of the
goods of non-member country origin, they must waive subsequent
entry
to
those
Article 220(2)(b) of that regulation, if three cumulative conditions
are fulfilled. First, it is necessary that those duties were not levied
as a result of an error on the part of the competent authorities
themselves, secondly, that that error was such that it could not
reasonably have been detected by a person liable for payment acting
in good faith and, finally, that that person complied with all the
provisions laid down by the legislation in force as regards the
customs declaration. It is for the national court to assess whether
that is the case in the circumstances in the main proceedings, on
the basis of all the concrete aspects of the case before it, and in par-
ticular the evidence adduced for that purpose by the applicant in
the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte
Suprema di Cassazione — Italy) — Ministero delle Finanze
v CO.GE.P. Srl

(Case C-174/06) (1)

(Sixth Directive — VAT — Exempted transactions — Leasing
or letting of immovable property — Property owned by the
State)

(2007/C 315/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione