CELEX: C2002/180/16
Language: en
Date: 2002-07-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-156/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozialgericht by order of that Court of 30 January 2002 in the case of Maria Purschke against Landesversicherungsanstalt Oberbayern

27.7.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 180/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-               1.    Must point 35 Germany-Austria (e)(i) of Parts A and B of
richt Braunschweig by order of that Court of 26 February                     Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be inter-
2002 in the administrative law proceedings brought by                        preted as requiring — in addition to entitlement to the
Schaper & Brümmer GmbH & Co KG against Bezirks-                              benefit on 1 January 1994 — also the taking up of
                    regierung Braunschweig                                   residence in Austria?
                          (Case C-84/02)
                                                                       2.    If so, are that provision and point C Germany (1) of
                        (2002/C 180/15)                                      Annex VI to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 compatible
                                                                             with higher-ranking European law, in particular the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       requirement of freedom of movement under Article 39
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                      EC in conjunction with Article 42 EC?
Braunschweig (Brunswick Administrative Court) of 26 Febru-
ary 2002, received at the Court Registry on 12 March 2002,
for a preliminary ruling in the administrative law proceedings         (1) OJ L 149, p. 2.
brought by Schaper & Brümmer GmbH & Co KG against
Bezirksregierung Braunschweig on the following question:
Is Council Directive 92/27/EEC (1) of 31 March 1992 on the
labelling of medicinal products for human use and on package
leaflets (OJ 1992 L 113, p. 8) in conjunction with Council
Directive 65/65/EEC (2) of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-
mation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or adminis-
trative action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ,         Appeal brought on 15 May 2002 against the judgment
English Special Edition, 1965-1966, p. 20) and the Second              delivered on 6 March 2002 by the Third Chamber,
Council Directive 75/319/EEC (3) of 20 May 1975 on the                 Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of
approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or            the European Communities in Joined Cases T-127/99,
administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal prod-          T-129/99 and T-148/99 (not yet published) between
ucts (OJ 1975 L 147, p. 13) or, in the alternative, the principle      Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de
of the free movement of goods (Article 28 EC), to be                   Álava and Others and Commission of the European
interpreted in such a way that Community law precludes                                             Communities
national legislation which requires the package leaflets —
which in other respects comply with Community law ‘of old
medicinal products’, that is to say products on the market for                                   (Case C-183/02 P)
a long time but for which the post-marketing authorisation
procedure is still pending, to include the following notice:
‘Dieses Arzneimittel ist nach den gesetzlichen Übergangs-                                        (2002/C 180/17)
vorschriften im Verkehr. Die behördliche Prüfung auf pharma-
zeutische Qualität, Wirksamkeit und Unbedenklichkeit ist
noch nicht abgeschlossen.’ (‘This medicinal product is market-
ed in accordance with the statutory transitional provisions.           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2002
Official verification of the product’s pharmaceutical quality,         by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
efficacy and safety has not yet been concluded.’)?                     First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
                                                                       T-127/99, T-129/99 and T-148/99 between Territorio His-
(1) OJ L 113 of 30.04.1992, p. 8.                                      tórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others and
(2) OJ P 022 of 09.02.1965, p. 369.                                    Commission of the European Communities was brought
(3) OJ L 147 of 09.06.1975, p. 13.                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       15 May 2002 by Daewoo Electronics Manufacturing España
                                                                       SA (DEMESA), represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and
                                                                       Begoña Uriarte Valiente, Abogados, of calle Velázquez No 63,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                Madrid.
gericht by order of that Court of 30 January 2002 in the
case of Maria Purschke against Landesversicherungsan-
                        stalt Oberbayern
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-156/02)
                        (2002/C 180/16)                                1.    declare the present appeal admissible and consequently:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 2.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht                     6 March 2002;
(Federal Social Court) of 30 January 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 29 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in           3.    itself give final judgment in the matter on the basis of the
the case of Maria Purschke against Landesversicherungsanstalt                appellant’s pleadings at first instance and, in particular,
Oberbayern (Regional Insurance Office for Oberbayern) on the                 annul Article 1(d) and Article 2 of the decision of the
following questions:                                                         Commission of 24 February 1999;