CELEX: C1997/108/35
Language: en
Date: 1997-04-05 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien by order of that court of 20 December 1996 in the case of Österreichische Unilever GmbH v. Smithkline Beecham Markenartikel GesmbH (Case C-77/97)

No C 108/ 18            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5 . 4 . 97
      91 /689/EEC of     12     December    1991    on hazardous               procedure from being conducted under the Federal
      waste 0 ), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its                 Procurement Law for awards of contracts for services,
      obligations under the EC Treaty,                                         and must such a national court conduct a review
                                                                               procedure in accordance with the fourth part of the
                                                                               Federal Procurement Law ?
— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                        3 . ( a ) Are the services mentioned in the facts of the case
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                 (with reference to Article 10 of Directive 92/50/
                                                                                    EEC ) to be classified as services coming under
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                            Annex IA, category No 2 ( land transport services )
                                                                                    and contracts for such services are thus to be
relied on in Case C-56/97 ( 2); the time-limit expired on
26 June 1995 .                                                                      awarded in accordance with the provisions of
                                                                                    Titles II and IV of the Directive, or are they to be
                                                                                    classified as services coming under Annex IB of
(') OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 20 .                                           Directive 92/50/EEC ( health ) with the result that
(2) See page 12 of this Official Journal .                                          contracts for such services are to be awarded in
                                                                                    accordance with the provisions of Articles 13 and
                                                                                    14, or do those services fall outside the sphere of
                                                                                    application of Directive 92/50/EEC ?
                                                                               ( b) Do the provisions of Articles 1 to 7, points 14 and
Reference        for    a preliminary ruling by the                                 16 , satisfy the preconditions laid down in the Van
Bundesvergabeamt by order of that court of 5 December                               Duyn Judgment on the direct applicability of a
1996 in the case of Walter Togel against                                            Community Directive, with the result that services
            Niederosterreichische Gebietskrankenkasse                               coming under Annex IB of the Directive are to be
                          ( Case C-76/97)
                                                                                    awarded under the procedure therein mentioned or
                                                                                    are the relevant provisions of the Directive for the
                            ( 97/C 108/34 )                                         services mentioned in Annex 1A capable of
                                                                                    fulfilling the preconditions laid down in the
                                                                                    abovementioned case ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt                   4 . Is there under Article 5 or other provisions of the EEC
 ( Federal Procurement Office ) of 5 December 1996,
                                                                               Treaty, or under Directive 92/50/EEC, an obligation
received at the Court Registry on 20 February 1997, for a                      on the State to interfere in existing legal situations
preliminary ruling in the case of Walter Togel against                         concluded for an indefinite period or for several years
Niederosterreichische           Gebietskrankenkasse      on    the
                                                                                but which were not entered into in accordance with
 following questions:                                                           the abovementioned Directive ?
  1 . May an individual derive, from Article 1 ( 1 ) and ( 2 )           H OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 33 .
       and Article 2 ( 1 ) or other provisions of Council                ( 2 ) OJ No L 209, 24 . 7. 1992 , p . 1 .
       Directive 89/665/EEC ( ] ) on the coordination of the
       laws, regulations and administrative provisions
       relating to the application of review procedures to the
       award of public supply and public works contracts, a
       specific right to have review proceedings conducted
       before authorities or courts which comply with the
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary                 ruling from the
       provisions of Article 2 ( 8 ) of Directive 89/665/EEC,
                                                                         Handelsgericht Wien by order                of that court of
       which right is so sufficiently precise and specific that,         20 December 1996 in the case of Osterreichische Unilever
       in the event of non-transposition of the Directive in                  GmbH v. Smithkline Beecham Markenartikel GesmbH
       question by the Member State, an individual may
       successfully assert that legal right against that Member                                      ( Case C-77/97)
       State in legal proceedings ?                                                                    ( 97/C 108/35
  2 . In conducting a review procedure on the basis of an
        individual's right, founded on Article 41 of Directive            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        92/50/EEC (2 ) in conjunction with Directive 89/665/              European Communities by an order of the Handelsgericht
        EEC, to the conduct of a review procedure, must a                 Wien ( Commercial Court, Vienna ) of 20 December 1996 ,
        national court, analogous to the Federal Procurement              which was received at the Court Registry on 21 February
        Office, refuse to take cognizance of provisions of                 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                           Osterreichische Unilever GmbH v. Smithkline Beecham
        national law such as Section 91 ( 2 ) ( 3 ) BVergG, which
        confer on the Federal Procurement Office powers of                 Markenartikel GesmbH on the following question:
        review only in the case of infringements of the Federal
        Procurement law and regulations adopted thereunder,                Does Article 30 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with
        on the ground that those provisions preclude a feview              Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the
 ---pagebreak--- 5 . 4 . 97            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 108/ 19
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating                 Action brought on 24 February 1997 by the Commission
to cosmetic products (*) preclude a national provision                  of the European Communities against the Federal
which contains prohibitions of statements in connection                                         Republic of Germany
with the marketing of cosmetic products which go beyond                                             ( Case C-83/97)
the restrictions contained in the Directive ?
                                                                                                      ( 97/C 108/38 )
(') OJ No L 262 , 27. 9 . 1976 , p . 169 .
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 24 February 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur
                                                                        Hausen, of the Legal Service of the Commission of the
Action brought on 25 February 1997 by Societe Anonyme                   European Communities, with an address for service in
des Caves et des Producteurs Reunis de Roquefort                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of
(Aveyron) and Others against the Commission of the                      the Legal Service of the Commission of the European
                   European Communities                                 Communities, Wagner Centre, C 254, Kirchberg.
                          ( Case C-80/97 )
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            ( 97/C 108/36 )
                                                                        — declare that, by failing to adopt within the period
An action against the Commission of the European                               prescribed all the measures necessary in order to
Communities which had previously been brought before                           comply with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May
the Court of First Instance was brought before the Court                        1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
of Justice of the European Communities on 25 February                          wild fauna and flora ('), the Federal Republic of
 1997 by Societe Anonyme des Caves et des Producteurs                           Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
Reunis de Roquefort ( Aveyron ) and Others . That action,                       EC Treaty,
T-140/97, was the subject of an order declining
jurisdiction and the Court of First Instance referred it to             — order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
 the Court of Justice in order that it might hear and                           costs .
 determine the claim for annulment.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 The pleas in law and main arguments were published in a                 Case C-56/97 (2); the time-limit for transposition of the
 notice in Official Journal of the European Communities                  Directive expired on 5 June 1994 .
 No C 318 of 26 October 1996 , page 24 .
                                                                         (') OJ No L 206 , 22 . 7. 1992, p. 7 .
                                                                         ( 2 ) See page 12 of this Official Journal .
 Action brought on 25 February 1997 by Bergpracht
 Milchwerk GmbH & Co. KG and others against the
           Commission of the European Communities                        Action brought on 28 February 1997 by the Commission
                            ( Case C-82/97)                              of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                                           Republic
                              ( 97/C 108/37)
                                                                                                      ( Case C-88/ 97)
                                                                                                        ( 97/C 108/39 )
  An action against the Commission of the European
  Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
  the European Communities on 25 February 1997 by                         An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
  Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co . KG and others. The                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
  action in question had previously been brought before the               on 28 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
  Court of First Instance under Case T-141/96 ; the Court of              Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
  First Instance made an order declining jurisdiction in the              of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
  case and transferred it to the Court of Justice for                     service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
  determination by the latter Court of the application for                 Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
  annulment .
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                           — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
  The pleas in law and main arguments are set out in a                           the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
   notice published in Official Journal of the European                          necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/43/EEC
   Communities No C 336 of 9 November 1996, page 30.                             of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
                                                                                 habitats and of wild fauna and flora ('), the
                                                                                 Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations