CELEX: C2003/171/06
Language: en
Date: 2003-07-19 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 May 2003 in Case C-103/01: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/686/EEC — Scope — Derogations — Personal protective equipment designed and manufactured specifically for use by the armed forces or in the maintenance of law and order)

19.7.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 171/5
      from being regarded by the national court as capable of being          of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth
      relied on against operators who carried on the activity of grating     Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas,
      and packaging the product in the period prior to the entry into        Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
      force of Regulation No 1107/96, should that court consider             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      that during that period the Decree of 4 November 1991 was              22 May 2003, in which it has ruled:
      applicable by virtue of the aforesaid Convention between the
      French Republic and the Italian Republic and capable of being          1.    A limited company established, owned and managed by a
      relied on against those concerned by virtue of the national rules            regional or local authority meets a need in the general interest,
      on publicity.                                                                within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 1(b)
                                                                                   of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
                                                                                   the coordination of procedures for the award of public service
( 1) OJ C 469 of 10.2.2001.                                                        contracts, where it acquires services with a view to promoting
                                                                                   the development of industrial or commercial activities on the
                                                                                   territory of that regional or local authority. To determine
                                                                                   whether that need has no industrial or commercial character,
                                                                                   the national court must assess the circumstances which prevailed
                                                                                   when that company was set up and the conditions in which it
                                                                                   carries on its activity, taking account in particular of the fact
                                                                                   that it does not aim primarily at making a profit, the fact that
                                                                                   it does not bear the risks associated with the activity, and any
                                                                                   public financing of the activity in question.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             2.    The fact that the premises to be constructed are leased only to a
                                                                                   single undertaking is not capable of calling into question the
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                         lessor’s status of a body governed by public law, where it is
                                                                                   shown that the lessor meets a need in the general interest not
                                                                                   having an industrial or commercial character.
                           of 22 May 2003
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
in Case C-18/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Kilpailuneuvosto): Arkkitehtuuritoimisto Riitta
Korhonen Oy, Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti Toivanen Oy,
Rakennuttajatoimisto Vilho Tervomaa v Varkauden Taito-
                              talo Oy (1)                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                        (Fifth Chamber)
(Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Defi-
nition of ‘contracting authoritye’ — Body governed by public                                            of 22 May 2003
law — Company set up by a regional or local authority to
promote the development of industrial or commercial activi-                  in Case C-103/01: Commission of the European Communi-
              ties on the territory of that authority)                                    ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                           (2003/C 171/05)                                   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                                                                             89/686/EEC — Scope — Derogations — Personal protective
                                                                             equipment designed and manufactured specifically for use
                    (Language of the case: Finnish)                           by the armed forces or in the maintenance of law and order)
                                                                                                        (2003/C 171/06)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                 in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-18/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Kilpailuneuvosto (Finland) for a preliminary ruling in                In Case C-103/01, Commission of the European Communities
the proceedings pending before that court between Arkkitehtu-                (Agent: J. Shieferer) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
uritoimisto Riitta Korhonen Oy, Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti                    W.-D. Plessing, B. Muttelsee-Schön and H.-W. Rengeling)
Toivanen Oy, Rakennuttajatoimisto Vilho Tervomaa and Var-                    supported by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and
kauden Taitotalo Oy, on the interpretation of Article 1(b) of                D. Colas): Application for a declaration that, by making, by
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                  means of the legislation of certain Länder, personal protective
coordination of procedures for the award of public service                   equipment for firefighters subject to additional requirements,
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                  although it complies with the requirements of Council Direc-
composed of: C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President                     tive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation
 ---pagebreak--- C 171/6                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             19.7.2003
of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective             Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma, Salumificio S. Rita SpA and
equipment (OJ 1989 L 399, p. 18), and bears the EC marking,                  Asda Stores Ltd, Hygrade Foods Ltd, on the interpretation of
the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its                     Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
obligations under Articles 1 and 4 of that directive, the Court              protection of geographical indications and designations of
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the                  origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208,
Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur)                p. 1), as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of
and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                       accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
General; H.-A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,             and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the
has given a judgment on 22 May 2003, in which it:                            Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994
                                                                             C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), and of Commission
                                                                             Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the
1.    Declares that by subjecting, by means of the legislation of            registration of geographical indications and designations of
      certain Länder, personal protection equipment for firefighters to      origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
      additional requirements despite the fact that it complies              Regulation No 2081/92 (OJ 1996 L 148, p. 1), the Court,
      with the requirements of Council Directive 89/686/EEC of               composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puisso-
      21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the               chet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C. W. A. Timmermans
      Member States relating to personal protective equipment and            (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
      bears the EC marking, the Federal Republic of Germany has              D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric,
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 4 of that        S. von Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber,
      directive;                                                             Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
                                                                             the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 May 2003, in which
2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;               it has ruled:
3.    Orders the French Republic to pay its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                                  1.    Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on
                                                                                   the protection of geographical indications and designations of
                                                                                   origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended by
                                                                                   the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic
                                                                                   of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden
                                                                                   and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
                                                                                   Union is founded, must be interpreted as not precluding the use
                                                                                   of a protected designation of origin from being subject to the
                                                                                   condition that operations such as the slicing and packaging of
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            the product take place in the region of production, where such a
                                                                                   condition is laid down in the specification.
                            of 20 May 2003
in Case C-108/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    2.    Where the use of the protected designation of origin ‘Prosciutto
the House of Lords): Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma,                            di Parma’ for ham marketed in slices is made subject to the
Salumificio S. Rita SpA v Asda Stores Ltd, Hygrade Foods                           condition that slicing and packaging operations be carried out
                                  Ltd ( 1)                                         in the region of production, this constitutes a measure having
                                                                                   equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports within
                                                                                   the meaning of Article 29 EC, but may be regarded as justified,
(Protected designations of origin — Regulation (EEC)                               and hence compatible with that provision.
No 2081/92 — Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 — ‘Prosciutto
di Parma’ — Specification — Requirement for ham to be
sliced and packaged in the region of production — Articles 29
EC and 30 EC — Justification — Whether requirement may                       3.    However, the condition in question cannot be relied on against
be relied on against third parties — Legal certainty —                             economic operators, as it was not brought to their attention by
                                Publicity)                                         adequate publicity in Community legislation.
                            (2003/C 171/07)
                    (Language of the case: English)                          (1 ) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
In Case C-108/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the House of Lords (United Kingdom) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between