CELEX: C2003/213/17
Language: en
Date: 2003-09-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-238/03 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2003 by Maja srl against the judgment delivered on 12 March 2003 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-254/99 between Maja srl and Commission of the European Communities

6.9.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                      C 213/11
Appeal brought on 27 May 2003 by Maja srl against the                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’Etat
judgment delivered on 12 March 2003 by the Second                         (Belgium) — Section d’administration by judgment of that
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    Court of 9 May 2003 in the case of Merck, Sharp and
Communities in Case T-254/99 between Maja srl and                                           Dohme BV against État belge
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                   (Case C-245/03)
                        (Case C-238/03 P)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 213/18)
                          (2003/C 213/17)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’État
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 March 2003                 (Belgium) — Section d’administration (Council of State —
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               Administrative Section) of 9 May 2003, received at the Court
European Communities in Case T-254/99 between Maja srl                    Registry on 10 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
and Commission of the European Communities was brought                    of Merck, Sharp and Dohme BV against Etat belge on the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                following question:
27 May 2003 by Maja srl, represented by P. Piva, R. Mastroianni
and G. Arendt, lawyers.
                                                                          Must the time-limit of 90 days, which may be extended for a
                                                                          further 90 days, mentioned in the first subparagraph of
                                                                          Article 6(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
                                                                          prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion
—     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance               in the scope of national health insurance systems (1), be
      (Second Chamber) of 12 March 2003 and consequently                  regarded as a merely indicative time-limit or as a mandatory
      annul also the measure appealed against at first instance;          time-limit and, if the time-limit is mandatory, what are the
                                                                          consequences of exceeding it as regards the response to be
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings                 given to the application for inclusion of a medicinal product
      before the Court of Justice and at first instance.                  in the list of medicinal products covered by the health
                                                                          insurance system?
                                                                          Must exceeding the time-limit be deemed to constitute
Pleas and main arguments                                                  inclusion in the abovementioned list?
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 40 of 11.02.1989, p. 8.
The appellant claims that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance is vitiated on the following grounds:
infringement of Regulation No 4028/86 ( 1) and implementing
Regulation No 1116/88 ( 2), as interpreted in the light of the
‘comitology’ decision; defective and illogical grounds; breach
of the principle of the right to a fair hearing and of
legal expectations; manifest inconsistency and contradiction;             Action brought on 17 June 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities against the French Republic
absence of correspondence between the remedy sought and
the judgment; breach of the obligation to state the reasons on
which the judgment is based, laid down in Article 33 of the                                        (Case C-258/03)
EC Statute of the Court of Justice as referred to in Article 46 of
the Statute itself; breach of the principle of rights of the
defence; breach of essential procedural requirements; breach                                       (2003/C 213/19)
of the general principles of delegated authority.
( 1) OJ 1986 L 376, p. 7.                                                 An action against the French Republic was brought before the
( 2) OJ 1988 L 112, p. 1.                                                 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 June
                                                                          2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by M. Condou Durande, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.