Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 45/6 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 10.2.2001

**Application brought on 14 December 2000 by Cotecna** 2. Do the so-called ‘simple’ cases of difference in the second
**Inspection SA for leave to attach assets held by the** sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 9(2) of the
**Commission of the European Communities** regulation presuppose the making of a ‘false declaration’
in the application itself, or is it simply a question of
comparing the information given in the application with
**(Case C-1/00 SA)**
the result of the on-the-spot inspection?

(2001/C 45/11)
( [1] ) OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36.

An application for leave to attach assets held by the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 December
2000 by Cotecna Inspection S.A., represented by Jacques
H.J. Bourgeois, of the Brussels Bar, of Messrs Akin, Gump,
**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht**
Strauss, Hauer & Fedd, with an address for service in Luxem**KöIn by order of 10 November 2000 in the case of Aventis**
bourg at the Chambers of Messrs Arendt & Medernach, 8-10
Rue Mathias Hardt. **Pharma Deutschland GmbH v Kohlpharma GmbH and**
**MTK Pharma Vertriebs GmbH**

The applicant claims that the Court should: **(Case C-433/00)**

—
grant the applicant leave to attach assets held by the (2001/C 45/13)
Commission amounting to USD 2 265 550,63 together
with interest at the legal rate in force in Djibouti from
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
28 January 2000, being the date of the arbitration award,
European Communities by order of 10 November 2000 by
and USD 66 000,
the Landgericht KöIn (Regional Court, Cologne) which was
received at the Court Registry on 23 November 2000, for a
with a view to the enforcement of an arbitration award made
preliminary ruling in the case of Aventis Pharma Deutschland
against the State of Djibouti which has become enforceable GmbH v Kohlpharma GmbH and MTK Pharma Vertriebs
pursuant to an order made the Tribunal de Première Instance,
GmbH on the following questions:
Brussels.
1. Do the provisions governing the central authorisation of
medicinal products in the European Union — in particular those of Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93( [1] ) — preclude
the legal possibility of ‘bundling’ (that is to say, the joining
together of several packages, each bearing the necessary
labelling, in order to form a new retail unit) of packages
of medicinal products following importation into one
**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwal-** Member State from another Member State, in such a way
**tungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt by order of that** that ‘repackaging’ of medicinal products (that is to say,
**court of 7 September 2000 in the case of Agrargenossen-** the production of new external packaging to which
**schaft Pretzsch e.G. against Amt für Landwirtschaft und** the importer affixes the foreign trademark without the
**Flurneuordnung Anhalt** authorisation of the trademark holder) is ‘necessary’
within the meaning of the decision of the European Court
**(Case C-417/00)** of Justice in Case C-232/94 MPA Pharma v RhônePoulenc Pharma( [2] ) and the trademark holder for that
reason cannot prohibit such repackaging?
(2001/C 45/12)
2. In the event that Question 1 should be answered in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the negative:
European Communities by order of the OberverwaltungsgeDo the rules on the free movement of goods within the
richt des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (Higher Administrative Court
Common Market or other rules of Community law stand
for the Land Sachsen-Anhalt) of 7 September 2000, received
in the way of a prohibition which, in cases of the kind
at the Court Registry on 13 November 2000, for a preliminary
referred to in Question 1, is directed against ‘repackaging’
ruling in the case of Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch e.G. v
on the ground, derived from national trademark law, that
Amt für Landwirtschaft und Flurneuordnung Anhalt on the
the possibility of creating a bundle package, which,
following questions:
moreover, exists _de facto_ and _de jure_, constitutes a less
1. On a proper interpretation of the third subparagraph of intrusive interference with the rights of the trademark
holder?
Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92,( [1] ) does
‘false declaration’ refer to a culpable positive act in the
context of an application for aid, so that failure to report ( [1] ) OJ 1993 L 214 of 24.8.1993, p. 1.
to the granting authority changes which are relevant to ( [2] ) [1996] ECR I-3671.
the application but do not occur until afterwards is not
penalised?