Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

19.7.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/5

_from being regarded by the national court as capable of being_
_relied on against operators who carried on the activity of grating_
_and packaging the product in the period prior to the entry into_
_force of Regulation No 1107/96, should that court consider_
_that during that period the Decree of 4 November 1991 was_
_applicable by virtue of the aforesaid Convention between the_
_French Republic and the Italian Republic and capable of being_
_relied on against those concerned by virtue of the national rules_
_on publicity._

( [1] ) OJ C 469 of 10.2.2001.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Fifth Chamber)**

**of 22 May 2003**

**in Case C-18/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling**
**from the Kilpailuneuvosto): Arkkitehtuuritoimisto Riitta**
**Korhonen Oy, Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti Toivanen Oy,**
**Rakennuttajatoimisto Vilho Tervomaa vVarkauden Taito-**
**talo Oy** ( [1] )

_**(Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Defi-**_
_**nition of ‘contracting authoritye’ — Body governedby public**_
_**law — Company set up by a regional or local authority to**_
_**promote the development of industrial or commercial activi-**_
_**ties on the territory of that authority)**_

(2003/C 171/05)

_(Language of the case: Finnish)_

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

In Case C-18/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Kilpailuneuvosto (Finland) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Arkkitehtuuritoimisto Riitta Korhonen Oy, Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti
Toivanen Oy, Rakennuttajatoimisto Vilho Tervomaa and Varkauden Taitotalo Oy, on the interpretation of Article 1(b) of
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President

of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth
Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
22 May 2003, in which it has ruled:

1. _A limited company established, owned and managed by a_
_regional or local authority meets a need in the general interest,_
_within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 1(b)_
_of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to_
_the coordination of procedures for the award of public service_
_contracts, where it acquires services with a view to promoting_
_the development of industrial or commercial activities on the_
_territory of that regional or local authority. To determine_
_whether that need has no industrial or commercial character,_
_the national court must assess the circumstances which prevailed_
_when that company was set up and the conditions in which it_
_carries on its activity, taking account in particular of the fact_
_that it does not aim primarily at making a profit, the fact that_
_it does not bear the risks associated with the activity, and any_
_public financing of the activity in question._

2. _The fact that the premises to be constructed are leased only to a_
_single undertaking is not capable of calling into question the_
_lessor’s status of a body governed by public law, where it is_
_shown that the lessor meets a need in the general interest not_
_having an industrial or commercial character._

( [1] ) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Fifth Chamber)**

**of 22 May 2003**

**in Case C-103/01: Commission of the European Communi-**
**ties v Federal Republic of Germany** ( [1] )

_**(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive**_
_**89/686/EEC — Scope — Derogations — Personal protective**_
_**equipment designed and manufactured specifically for use**_
_**by the armed forces or in the maintenance of law and order)**_

(2003/C 171/06)

_(Language of the case: German)_

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

In Case C-103/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: J. Shieferer) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
W.-D. Plessing, B. Muttelsee-Schön and H.-W. Rengeling)
supported by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and
D. Colas): Application for a declaration that, by making, by
means of the legislation of certain Länder, personal protective
equipment for firefighters subject to additional requirements,
although it complies with the requirements of Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation

C 171/6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 19.7.2003

of the laws of theMember States relating to personal protective
equipment (OJ 1989 L 399, p. 18), and bears the EC marking,
the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Articles 1 and 4 of that directive, the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; H.-A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 22 May 2003, in which it:

1. _Declares that by subjecting, by means of the legislation of_
_certain Länder, personal protection equipment for firefighters to_
_additional requirements despite the fact that it complies_
_with the requirements of Council Directive 89/686/EEC of_
_21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the_
_Member States relating to personal protective equipment and_
_bears the EC marking, the Federal Republic of Germany has_
_failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 4 of that_
_directive;_

2. _Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;_

3. _Orders the French Republic to pay its own costs._

( [1] ) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**of 20 May 2003**

**in Case C-108/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from**
**the House of Lords): Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma,**
**Salumificio S. Rita SpA v Asda Stores Ltd, Hygrade Foods**
**Ltd** ( [1] )

_**(Protected designations of origin — Regulation (EEC)**_
_**No 2081/92 — Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 — ‘Prosciutto**_
_**di Parma’ — Specification — Requirement for ham to be**_
_**sliced and packaged in the region of production —Articles 29**_
_**EC and 30 EC — Justification — Whether requirement may**_
_**be relied on against third parties — Legal certainty —**_
_**Publicity)**_

(2003/C 171/07)

_(Language of the case: English)_

In Case C-108/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the House of Lords (United Kingdom) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma, Salumificio S. Rita SpA and
Asda Stores Ltd, Hygrade Foods Ltd, on the interpretation of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
protection of geographical indications and designations of
origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208,
p. 1), as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of
accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the
Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994
C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), and of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the
registration of geographical indications and designations of
origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
Regulation No 2081/92 (OJ 1996 L 148, p. 1), the Court,
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C. W. A. Timmermans
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric,
S. von Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber,
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 May 2003, in which
it has ruled:

1. _Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on_
_the protection of geographical indications and designations of_
_origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended by_
_the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic_
_of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden_
_and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European_
_Union is founded, must be interpreted as not precluding the use_
_of a protected designation of origin from being subject to the_
_condition that operations such as the slicing and packaging of_
_the product take place in the region of production, where such a_
_condition is laid down in the specification._

2. _Where the use of the protected designation of origin ‘Prosciutto_
_di Parma’ for ham marketed in slices is made subject to the_
_condition that slicing and packaging operations be carried out_
_in the region of production, this constitutes a measure having_
_equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports within_
_the meaning of Article 29 EC, but may be regarded as justified,_
_and hence compatible with that provision._

3. _However, the condition in question cannot be relied on against_
_economic operators, as it was not brought to their attention by_
_adequate publicity in Community legislation._

( [1] ) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.