CELEX: C1999/136/17
Language: en
Date: 1999-05-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-74/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office) (England and Wales) by order of that court of 2 February 1999, in the case of the Queen against 1. Secretary of State for Health, 2. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, 3. HM Attorney General, ex parte: 1. Imperial Tobacco Ltd, 2. Gallaher Ltd, 3. Rothmans (UK) Ltd, 4. British American Tobacco Investments Ltd

C 136/10              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       15.5.1999
B. The following further question is referred to the Court of           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
    Justice only in case Question A is answered in the                  Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) (England
    affirmative:                                                        and Wales) by order of that court of 2 February 1999, in
                                                                        the case of the Queen against 1. Secretary of State for
    Is the obligation described at (A) sufficiently specific and        Health, 2. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, 3.
    precise for individuals thereby to be given the right to a          HM Attorney General, ex parte: 1. Imperial Tobacco Ltd,
    review procedure in accordance with the requirements of             2. Gallaher Ltd, 3. Rothmans (UK) Ltd, 4. British American
    Article 1 of Directive 89/665/EEC, in which the national                               Tobacco Investments Ltd
    court must at least be able to adopt interim measures
    within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) and (b) of Directive
    89/665/EEC and to annul the contracting authority’s                                           (Case C-74/99)
    award decision, and for individuals to be able to rely in
    proceedings on that obligation as against a Member State?
                                                                                                 (1999/C 136/17)
C. The following further question, finally, is referred to the
    Court of Justice only in case Question B is answered in the
    affirmative:                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the High Court of
    Is the obligation described at (A) itself sufficiently specific     Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) (England and
    and precise that the national court must in such proceed-           Wales) of 2 February 1999, which has received at the Court
    ings disregard contrary provisions of national law, observ-         Registry on 2 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
    ance of which would prevent the court from fulfilling that          of The Queen against 1. Secretary of State for Health, 2.
    obligation, and must fulfil that obligation directly as part        Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, 3. HM Attorney
    of the Community legal order even if national law lacks             General, ex parte: 1. Imperial Tobacco Ltd, 2. Gallaher Ltd, 3.
    any basis on which to act?                                          Rothmans (UK) Ltd, 4. British American Tobacco Investments
                                                                        Ltd, on the following question:
(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 33.
                                                                        Is Council Directive 98/43 (1) invalid, in whole or in part, by
                                                                        reason of:
                                                                        (a) the inadequacy of Articles 57(2), 66 and 100A as a legal
                                                                             basis;
                                                                        (b) infringement of the fundamental right to freedom of
                                                                             expression;
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
Münster, by order of that court of 26 January 1999, in
the case of Viktor Movrin v Landesversicherungsanstalt                  (c) infringement of the principle of proportionality;
                           Westfalen
                                                                        (d) infringement of the principle of subsidiarity;
                        (Case C-73/99)
                       (1999/C 136/16)                                  (e) infringement of the duty to give reasons;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (f) infringement of Article 222 EC and/or the fundamental
European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Münster                   right to property?
(Social Court, Münster) of 26 January 1999, which was
received at the Court Registry on 2 March 1999, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Viktor Movrin v Landesver-
sicherungsanstalt Westfalen on the following question:
                                                                        (1) Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                            of 6 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
Is European Community law infringed where the defendant                     administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the
refuses to grant a subsidy in respect of the cost of Netherlands            advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (OJ L 213,
sickness insurance to the plaintiff, who receives a normal                  30.7.1998, p. 9).
old-age pension from the defendant?