Case C-350/08: Action brought on 29 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Lithuania
Date: 2008-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Lithuania, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, marketing, medicinal product, pharmaceutical legislation, public health

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/9

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Krzysztof Filipiak

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu

Questions referred

1. Must Article 43(1) and (2) EC be construed as precluding the
provisions of Polish national law in Article 26(1)(2) of the
ustawa o podatku dochodowym od osób fizychznych (Law
on income tax payable by natural persons) of 26 July 1991
…, under which the right to a reduction of the basis of
assessment for income tax by the amount of compulsory
social insurance contributions is restricted to contributions
paid on the basis of provisions of national
law, and in
Article 27b(1) of the Law of 26 July 1991 on income tax
payable by natural persons, under which the right to a reduc-
tion of income tax by the amount of compulsory health
insurance contributions is restricted to contributions paid on
the basis of provisions of national law, in the case where a
Polish national, subject to unlimited liability to tax in Poland
on income taxed there, also pays in another Member State
compulsory social and health insurance contributions in
respect of an economic activity carried on in that other State,
and those contributions have not been deducted from
income or from tax there?

precedence

2. Must the principle of the primacy of Community law and
Article 10 and Article 43(1) and (2) EC be construed as
in
taking
provisions
the
the
Article 91(2) and (3) and Article 190(1) and (3) of
Constitution of the Republic of Poland (Dz. U. (Journal of
Laws) 1997 No 14, heading 176, as amended) in so far as
the entry into force of a judgment of the Constitutional
Court has been deferred on the basis of those provisions?

national

over

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
cassation (France) lodged on 17 July 2008 — Olympique
Lyonnais v Olivier Bernard, Newcastle United FC

(Case C-325/08)

(2008/C 247/15)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Olympique Lyonnais

Defendants: Olivier Bernard, Newcastle United FC

Questions referred

1. Does the principle of the freedom of movement for workers
laid down in [Article 39 EC] preclude a provision of national

law pursuant to which an espoir player who at the end of his
training period signs a professional player's contract with a
club of another Member State of the European Union may
be ordered to pay damages?

2. If so, does the need to encourage the recruitment and
training of young professional players constitute a legitimate
objective or an overriding reason in the general
interest
capable of justifying such a restriction?

Action brought on 29 July 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Lithuania

(Case C-350/08)

(2008/C 247/16)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Steiblytė and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Lithuania

Form of order sought

— declare that, by retaining in force the national authorisation
for the marketing of the medicinal product ‘Grasalva’, the
its obligations
Republic of Lithuania has failed to meet
under Article 6(1) of and Section 4 of Part II of Annex I to
Directive
by Directive
as
2003/63/EC (2), under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC)
No 2309/93 (3) and under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 726/2004 (4);

2001/83/EC (1),

amended

— order the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(i) The Republic of Lithuania is required, under Article 6(1) of
Directive 2001/83/EC,
to examine whether marketing
authorisations issued prior to accession comply with the
requirements of the Community legislation on pharmaceu-
tical products in force at the time of accession and, as from
1 May 2004, to ensure that only medicinal products the
authorisations for which comply with those requirements
are placed on the market.

(ii) The medicinal product

is not mentioned in
‘Grasalva’
Appendix A to Annex IX to the 2003 Act of Accession and
for that reason the provisions relating to the transitional
period cannot be applied to it and, as from 1 May 2004,
this medicinal product could be marketed only if
it
complied with all of the Community-law requirements in
force for similar biological medicinal products with regard

C 247/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.9.2008

to quality, safety and efficacy, in particular those laid down
in Section 4 of Part II of Annex I to Directive 2001/83/EC,
as amended by Directive 2003/63/EC.

(iii) The competent institutions of the Republic of Lithuania
have themselves established that the documents relating to
the medicinal product ‘Grasalva’ do not contain any infor-
mation concerning pre-clinical or clinical trials provided in
accordance with Section 4 of Part II of Annex I to Directive
2001/83/EC,
amended by Directive 2003/63/EC,
concerning compliance by the medicinal product ‘Grasalva’
with the safety and efficacy requirements applied to similar
biological medicinal products.

as

fails

to meet

‘Grasalva’

(iv) The national marketing authorisation for the medicinal
product
the requirements of
Section 4 of Part II of Annex I to Directive 2001/83/EC, as
amended by Directive 2003/63/EC, with the result that, as
from the date of accession, that medicinal product could be
placed on the market only if marketing authorisation for it
had been granted centrally pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regu-
lation (EEC) No 2309/93 (applied up to 20 November
2005) or Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004
(applicable from 21 November 2005).

(1) Directive 2001/83/EC of

the
Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to
medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

the European Parliament and of

(2) Commission Directive 2003/63/EC of 25 June 2003 amending
Directive 2001/83/EC of
the
Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products for
human use (OJ 2003 L 159, p. 46).

the European Parliament and of

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down
Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of
medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a
European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (OJ 1993
L 214, p. 1).

(4) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for
the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human
and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency
(OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).

Form of order sought

— declare that, by imposing an obligation on every medical
doctor becoming established in Oberösterreich (Land of
Upper Austria) to open a bank account with the Oberöster-
reichische Landesbank to which fees for benefits in kind are
to be transferred by the health insurance funds, the Republic
of Austria has failed to comply with its obligations under
Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 56 EC;

— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The mandatory opening of an account, to which, moreover, all
fees for benefits in kind from health insurance funds must be
transferred, is disproportionate to the need to ensure the proper
calculation and levying of
the contributions payable to the
medical councils by medical doctors established in Oberöster-
reich. The disputed rules for that reason amount to unjustified
restrictions of three fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the
Treaty, namely the freedom of establishment of medical doctors
established in other Member States and that of banks, their
freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital.

Action brought on 4 August 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-357/08)

(2008/C 247/18)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Action brought on 30 July 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Zavvos)

(Case C-356/08)

(2008/C 247/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: E. Traversa and A. Böhlke, Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

the European Parliament and of

— declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2005/14/EC (1) of
the
Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives
72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and
Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council relating to insurance against civil
liability in
respect of the use of motor vehicles, or in any event by not
notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that direc-
tive;

Defendant: Republic of Austria

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.