Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

21.12.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 323/19

and J.N. Cuhna Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 24 October 2002, in which it:

1. _Declares that, by failing to specify the circumstances in which_
_the workers concerned are to be provided with special corrective_
_appliances appropriate for the work concerned, the Italian_
_Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(3)_
_of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the_
_minimum safety and health requirements for work with display_
_screen equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning_
_of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC);_

2. _Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs._

( [1] ) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Fifth Chamber)**

**of 7 November 2002**

**In Joined Cases C-24/01 P and C-25/01 P: Glencore Grain**
**Ltd and Compagnie Continentale (France) SA** ( [1] )

_**(Appeal — Emergency aid provided by the Community to**_
_**the States of the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender**_
_**— Free competition — Hearing of witnesses)**_

(2002/C 323/23)

_(Language of the case: French)_

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

In Joined Cases C-24/01 P and C-25/01 P, Glencore Grain Ltd,
formerly Richco Commodities Ltd, established in Hamilton
(Bermudes) (Agents: P. Bos and J. van Zuuren), Compagnie
Continentale (France) SA, established in Labège (France)
(Agents: P. Bos and P. Chabrier): Two Appeals against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Second Chamber) of 8 November 2000 in
Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98
Dreyfus and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-3659,
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties
to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and T. van Rijn), Louis
Dreyfus & Cie SA, established in Paris (France), the Court (Fifth

Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President
of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann
and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 November 2002, in
which it:

1. _Dismisses the appeals;_

2. _Orders Glencore Grain Ltd to pay the costs in Case C-24/01 P_
_and Compagnie Continentale (France) SA to pay the costs in_
_Case C-25/01 P._

( [1] ) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Second Chamber)**

**of 24 October 2002**

**in Case C-81/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from**
**the Cour de cassation): Borie Manoux SARL v Directeur**
**de l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle (INPI)** ( [1] )

_**(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —**_
_**Wine — Description and presentation of wines — Quality**_
_**wines produced in specific regions — Brand name printed on**_
_**label — Restrictions — Articles 11 and 40 of Regulation**_
_**No 2392/89)**_

(2002/C 323/24)

_(Language of the case: French)_

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

In Case C-81/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Borie
Manoux SARL and Directeur de l’Institut national de la
propriété industrielle (INPI), on the interpretation of Article 40
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July 1989
laying down general rules for the description and presentation
of wines and grape musts (OJ 1989 L 232, p. 13), as amended
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3897/91 of 16 December
1991 (OJ 1991 L 368, p. 5), the Court (Second Chamber),
composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 24 October 2002, in which it has ruled:

C 323/20 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21.12.2002

_Article 40 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July_
_1989 laying down general rules for the description and presentation_
_of wines and grape musts, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)_
_No 3897/91 of 16 December 1991, is to be interpreted as not_
_prohibiting the use of a trade mark which contains a geographical_
_reference and is intended for use in connection with the sale of wine_
_and is likely to give the false impression that the geographical_
_reference is protected, unless there is a real risk that use of such a_
_mark will mislead consumers and, as a result, alter their economic_
_behaviour. It is a matter for the national court to determine whether_
_or not that is the case._

( [1] ) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Sixth Chamber)**

**of 24 October 2002**

**in Case C-82/01 P: Aéroports de Paris v Commission of**
**the European Communities** ( [1] )

_**(Appeal — Competition — Air transport — Airport man-**_
_**agement — Abuse of dominant position — Discriminatory**_
_**fees)**_

(2002/C 323/25)

_(Language of the case: French)_

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

In Case C-82/01 P, Aéroports de Paris (Agent: H. Calvet):
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 12 December
2000 in Case T-128/98 Aéroports de Paris v Commission

[2000] ECR II-3929, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: L. Pignataro, assisted by
B. Geneste) and Alpha Flight Services SAS (Agents: L. Marville
and A. Denants), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
(Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October 2002, in which
it:

1. _Dismisses the appeal;_

2. _Orders Aéroports de Paris to pay the costs._

( [1] ) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Sixth Chamber)**

**of 24 October 2002**

**in Case C-99/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from**
**the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Gottfried Linhart v Hans**
**Biffl** ( [1] )

_**(Approximation of laws — Articles 30 and 36 of the EC**_
_**Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC)**_
_**— Directive 76/768/EEC relating to cosmetic products —**_
_**Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising —**_
_**National legislation laying down restrictions on advertising)**_

(2002/C 323/26)

_(Language of the case: German)_

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

In Case C-99/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court against
Gottfried Linhart and Hans Biffl, on the interpretation of
Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) and Council Directive 76/768/EEC
of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ 1976 L 262,
p. 169), as amended by Council Directive 93/35/EEC of
14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 151, p. 32), and Council Directive
84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ
1984 L 250, p. 17), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,
V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 24 October 2002, in which it has
ruled:

1. _Article 6(3) of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July_
_1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States_
_relating to cosmetic products, as amended by Council Directive_
_93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, precludes national legislation_
_which prohibits reference to expert medical opinions in the_
_marketing of cosmetic products — in particular, the use of the_
_statement ‘dermatologically tested’ — if that reference does not_
_include information relating to the contents and outcome of_
_those assessments._