Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 112/18 EN Official Journal of the European Union 10.5.2003

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

—
declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Commission Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 on
the transparency of financial relations between Member
States and public undertakings as well as on financial
transparency within certain undertakings ( [1] ) or, in any
event, by failing to notify them to the Commission,
France has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
directive;

—
order France to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The period prescribed for transposition expired on 31 January
2001.

( [1] ) OJ L 193 of 29 July 2002, p. 78.

**Action brought on 18 March 2003 by the Commission of**
**the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain**

**(Case C-120/03)**

(2003/C 112/31)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justiceof theEuropean Communities on 18 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by K. Banks and J.L. Buendía Sierra, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 98/71/EC( [1] ) of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection
of designs or, in any event, by failing to communicate
them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The period prescribed for implementation of the directive
expired on 28 October 2001.

( [1] ) OJEC L 289 of 28 October 1998, p. 28.

**Action brought on 19 March 2003 by the Commission of**
**the European Communities against the French Republic**

**(Case C-122/03)**

(2003/C 112/32)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by H. Støvlbæk and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by imposing, pursuant to Article R. 514215 of the Public Health Code, on traders importing or
distributing in France medicinal products which are
already covered by a marketing authorisation for the
French or Community market the requirement that they
submit, at the request of the monitoring authorities,
either a certified copy issued by the French agency for
health products sanitary safety (FAHPSS) of the French
marketing authorisation or of the registration of the
medicinal product, or a document issued by the FAHPSS
attesting to the fact that the imported medicinal product
has obtained a marketing authorisation issued by the
European Community, the French Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 28 of the EC Treaty;

2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

So far as concerns the importation into France of pharmaceutical products already covered by a marketing authorisation for
the French or Community market, Article R. 5142-15 of the
Public Health Code requires the submission at the request of
customs officers of either a certified copy of the marketing
authorisation or of the registration of the medicinal product
or a document attesting to the fact that the imported medicinal
product has obtained a marketing authorisation issued by the
European Community, each of those documents being issued
by the FAHPSS.

The effects of that provision on traders wishing to import and
distribute pharmaceutical products in France may be resumed
as follows: (i) formalities, costs and the time entailed by the
granting procedure are imposed on traders which they are
obliged to bear, on pain of sanctions, throughout its term; (ii)
those same traders are obliged to be constantly in possession
of documents which could be potentially numerous and
voluminous.