CELEX: C2001/200/24
Language: en
Date: 2001-07-14 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 May 2001 in Joined Cases C-223/99 and C-260/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia): Agorà Srl v Ente Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Milano, and between Excelsior Snc di Pedrotti Bruna & C. and Ente Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Milano, Ciftat soc. coop. arl (Public service contracts — Definition of contracting authorities — Body governed by public law)

14.7.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 200/13
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and          2.    Article 7(c) of Directive 85/374 is to be interpreted as meaning
      administrative provisions necessary for the full transposition              that the exemption from liability where an activity has no
      into national law of Articles 4(2) and 5 of Council Directive               economic or business purpose does not extend to the case of a
      93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer                       defective product which has been manufactured and used in the
      contracts, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil              course of a specific medical service which is financed entirely
      its obligations under that Directive;                                       from public funds and for which the patient is not required to
                                                                                  pay any consideration.
2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
                                                                            3.    Article 9 of Directive 85/374 is to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                                  that, save for non-material damage whose reparation is
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                                  governed solely by national law and the exclusions detailed in
                                                                                  that article as regards damage to an item of property, a Member
                                                                                  State may not restrict the types of material damage, resulting
                                                                                  from death or from personal injury, or from damage to or
                                                                                  destruction of an item of property, which are to be made good.
                                                                            4.    The national court is required, under Directive 85/374, to
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          examine under which head the circumstances of the case are to
                                                                                  be categorised, namely whether the case concerns damage
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                       covered either by point (a) or by point (b) of the first paragraph
                                                                                  of Article 9 or non-material damage which may possibly be
                                                                                  covered by national law. The national court may, however, not
                            of 10 May 2001                                        decline to award any damages at all under the Directive on the
                                                                                  ground that, where the other conditions of liability are fulfilled,
in Case C-203/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                         the damage incurred is not such as to fall under any of the
the Højesteret): Henning Veedfald v Århus Amtskommu-                              foregoing heads.
                                  ne (1)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
(Approximation of laws — Directive 85/374/EEC — Liab-
ility for defective products — Exemption from liability —
                               Conditions)
                            (2001/C 200/23)
                     (Language of the case: Danish)                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                  (Fifth Chamber)
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                                        of 10 May 2001
In Case C-203/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Højesteret                      in Joined Cases C-223/99 and C-260/99 (reference for a
(Supreme Court) (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in the                   preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo
proceedings pending before that court between Henning                       regionale per la Lombardia): Agorà Srl v Ente Autonomo
Veedfald and Århus Amtskommune — on the interpretation                      Fiera Internazionale di Milano, and between Excelsior
of Article 7(a) and (c) and points (a) and (b) of the first                 Snc di Pedrotti Bruna & C. and Ente Autonomo Fiera
paragraph of Article 9 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of                         Internazionale di Milano, Ciftat soc. coop. arl (1)
25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning               (Public service contracts — Definition of contracting auth-
liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29) — the                            orities — Body governed by public law)
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rappor-
teur) and L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                                           (2001/C 200/24)
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 10 May 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
1.    Article 7(a) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
      1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions of the Member States concerning             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      liability for defective products is to be interpreted as meaning                           in the European Court Reports)
      that a defective product is put into circulation when it is used
      during the provision of a specific medical service, consisting in     In Joined Cases C-223/99 and C-260/99: reference to the
      preparing a human organ for transplantation, and the damage           Court under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale amministrativo
      caused to the organ results from that preparatory treatment.          regionale (Regional Administrative Court) per la Lombardia
 ---pagebreak--- C 200/14                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                   ’s-Gravenhage (District Court, The Hague) (Netherlands) for a
before that court between Agorà Srl and Ente Autonomo Fiera                   preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Internazionale di Milano, and between Excelsior Snc di Pedrotti               court between BASF AG and Bureau voor de Industriële
Bruna & C. and Ente Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Milano,                  Eigendom (BIE) — on the interpretation of Articles 1 and 3 of
Ciftat soc. coop. arl — on the interpretation of Article 1(b) of              Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                   of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of
coordination of procedures for the award of public service                    a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                  products (OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,                         composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the
M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and                          Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and
L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                     F. Macken, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louter-
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment              man-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a
on 10 May 2001, in which it has ruled:                                        judgment on 10 May 2001, in which it has ruled:
A body
—     whose object is to carry on activities relating to the organisation     1.   The concept of a product within the meaning of Article 3 of
      of fairs, exhibitions and other similar initiatives;                         Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and
                                                                                   of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a
—     which is non-profit-making but is administered according to                  supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products
      the criteria of performance, efficiency and cost-effectiveness; and          covers chemical elements and their compounds, as they occur
                                                                                   naturally or by manufacture, including any impurity inevitably
—     which operates in a competitive environment
                                                                                   resulting from the manufacturing process, which have general
does not constitute a body governed by public law for the purposes of              or specific action against harmful organisms or on plants, parts
the second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of Council Directive                       of plants or plant products.
92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
procedures for the award of public service contracts.
                                                                              2.   Two products which differ only in the proportion of the active
                                                                                   chemical compound to the impurity they contain, one having a
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.9.1999.                                                         greater percentage of the impurity than the other, must be
                                                                                   regarded as the same product within the meaning of Article 3
                                                                                   of Regulation No 1610/96.
                                                                              3.   The fact that a marketing authorisation must be obtained for
                                                                                   the new plant protection product which has a different
                                                                                   proportion of active chemical compound to impurity from that
                                                                                   of the former plant protection product is not relevant for the
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           purposes of establishing whether or not the constituent products
                                                                                   of those plant protection products are the same.
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                              4.   The conditions laid down in Article 3(1)(a) and (d) of
                            of 10 May 2001                                         Regulation No 1610/96 are, in any event, not all satisfied
                                                                                   where a product, as a plant protection product, manufactured
in Case C-258/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                          according to a patented process and the subject of a marketing
the Arrondissementsrechtbank ’s-Gravenhage): BASF AG                               authorisation, differs from a previously authorised product, as a
       v Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom (BIE) (1)                             plant protection product, only in the proportion of the active
                                                                                   chemical compound to the impurity it contains, the percentage
                                                                                   of impurity being greater in the older product than in the new
[Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 — Plant protection products                            one, and where that process patent has been designated as the
             — Supplementary protection certificate]                               basic patent.
                            (2001/C 200/25)
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                           (1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-258/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
of the EC Treaty from the Arrondissementsrechtbank