Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 47/6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 21.2.2004

_prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products_
_which are not subject to prescription in the Member State_
_concerned._

(c) _Questions 1(a) and 1(b) do not need to be assessed_
_differently where medicinal products are imported into a_
_Member State in which they are authorised, having been_
_previously obtained by a pharmacy in another Member_
_State from a wholesaler in the importing Member State._

2. _Article 88(1) 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_
_precludes a national prohibition on advertising the sale by mail_
_order of medicinal products which may be supplied only in_
_pharmacies in the Member State concerned, such as the_
_prohibition laid down in Paragraph 8(1) of the Heilmittelwer-_
_begesetz (Law on the advertising of medicinal products), in so_
_far as the prohibition covers medicinal products which are not_
_subject to prescription._

( [1] ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Fifth Chamber)**

**of 11 December 2003**

**in Case C-364/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling**
**from the Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch): The heirs of**
**H. Barbier v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Particulier-**
**en/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen** ( [1] )

_**(Interpretation of Articles 48 and 52 of the EEC Treaty**_
_**(subsequently Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty, now,**_
_**after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC), Article 67 of**_
_**the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 67 of the EC Treaty,**_
_**repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam), Articles 6 and 8a of**_
_**the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and**_
_**18 EC) — Directives 88/361/EEC and 90/364/EEC —**_
_**Inheritance tax — Requirement of cross-border economic**_
_**activity — Prohibition of discrimination on the basis of**_
_**Member State of residence)**_

(2004/C 47/09)

_(Language of the case: Dutch)_

_(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published_
_in the European Court Reports)_

In Case C-364/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between the heirs of H. Barbier and Inspecteur van
de Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te

Heerlen, on the interpretation of Articles 48 and 52 of the EEC
Treaty (subsequently Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty, now,
after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC), Article 67 of the
EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 67 of the EC Treaty, repealed
by the Treaty of Amsterdam), Articles 6 and 8a of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 18 EC) and
the provisions of Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June
1990 on the right of residence (OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26) and
Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the
implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (OJ 1988 L 178,
p. 5), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
acting as the President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward
(Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 11 December 2003, in which it has
ruled:

_Community law precludes national legislation concerning the assess-_
_ment of tax due on the inheritance of immovable property situated in_
_the Member State concerned according to which, in order to assess_
_the property’s value, the fact that the person holding legal title was_
_under an unconditional obligation to transfer it to another person_
_who has financial ownership of that property may be taken into_
_account if, at the time of his death, the former resided in that Member_
_State, but may not be taken into account if he resided in another_
_Member State._

( [1] ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Fifth Chamber)**

**of 7 January 2004**

**in Case C-500/01: Commission of the European Communi-**
**ties v Kingdom of Spain** ( [1] )

_**(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Market**_
_**for telecommunications services — Tariff rebalancing —**_
_**Access to the local loop — Directive 90/388/EEC —**_
_**Article 4(c))**_

(2004/C 47/10)

_(Language of the case: Spanish)_

_(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published_
_in the European Court Reports)_

In Case C-500/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: S. Rating) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz

21.2.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 47/7

Vaamonde): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with Article 4(c) of Commission Directive
90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets
for telecommunications services (OJ 1990 L 192, p. 10) as
amended by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March
1996 (OJ 1996 L 74, p. 13), the Kingdom of Spain has failed
to fulfil its obligations under those directives and the EC
Treaty, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting
for the President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward
(Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 January
2004, in which it:

1. _Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and_
_administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 4(c)_
_of Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on_
_competition in the markets for telecommunications services, as_
_amended by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March_
_1996, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations_
_under that directive;_

2. _Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs._

( [1] ) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Fifth Chamber)**

**of 7 January 2004**

**in Case C-58/02: Commission of the European Communi-**
**ties v Kingdom of Spain** ( [1] )

_**(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive**_
_**98/84/EC — Information society — Radio broadcasting —**_
_**Services based on conditional access — Services consisting**_
_**of conditional access — Protected services — Legal protection**_
_**— Devices giving unauthorised access)**_

(2004/C 47/11)

_(Language of the case: Spanish)_

_(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published_
_in the European Court Reports)_

In Case C-58/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and M. Shotter v Kingdom of Spain
(Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde): Application for a declaration that,

by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/84/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November
1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting
of, conditional access (OJ 1998 L 320, p. 54), or, at the very
least, by failing to notify the Commission of the adoption of
those measures, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr,
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 7 January 2004, in which it:

1. _Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and_
_administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive_
_98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of_
_20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based_
_on, or consisting of, conditional access, the Kingdom of Spain_
_has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;_

2. _Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs._

( [1] ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Fifth Chamber)**

**of 7 January 2004**

**in Case C-60/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from**
**the Landesgericht Eisenstadt): X** ( [1] )

_**(Counterfeit and pirated goods — No criminal penalty for**_
_**the transit of counterfeit goods — Compatibility with**_
_**Regulation (EC) No 3295/94)**_

(2004/C 47/12)

_(Language of the case: German)_

_(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published_
_in the European Court Reports)_

In Case C-60/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Landesgericht Eisenstadt (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against X,
on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94
of 22 December 1994 laying down measures concerning the
entry into the Community and the export and re-export
from the Community of goods infringing certain intellectual
property rights (OJ 1994 L 341, p. 8), as amended by Council