CELEX: C2000/063/04
Language: en
Date: 2000-03-04 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 1999 in Case C-74/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret): DAT-SCHAUB amba v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (Agriculture — Common organisation of the market — Beef and veal — Export refunds — Beef processed before entering the country of import — International agreements — Effects — Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community, of the one part, and the countries parties to the Charter of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, of the other part)

C 63/2                     EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              4.3.2000
1. Declares that, by failing, within the prescribed period, to classify       Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
     a sufficient area in the Poitevin Marsh as special protection areas,     coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts is
     by failing to adopt measures conferring a sufficient legal status        to be interpreted as permitting a service provider to establish that it
     on the special protection areas classified in the Poitevin Marsh,        fulfils the economic, financial and technical criteria for participation
     and by failing to adopt appropriate measures to avoid deterio-           in a tendering procedure for the award of a public service contract by
     ration of the sites in the Poitevin Marsh classified as special          relying on the standing of other entities, regardless of the legal nature
     protection areas and of certain of those which should have been          of the links which it has with them, provided that it is able to show
     so classified, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations  that it actually has at its disposal the resources of those entities which
     under Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April               are necessary for performance of the contract. It is for the national
     1979 on the conservation of wild birds;                                  court to assess whether the requisite evidence in that regard has been
                                                                              adduced in the main proceedings.
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                               (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
                                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 (First Chamber)
                             (Fifth Chamber)                                                         of 16 December 1999
                          of 2 December 1999                                  in Case C-74/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Østre Landsret): DAT-SCHAUB amba v Ministeriet
in Case C-176/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                   for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (1)
the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna):
            Holst Italia SpA v Comune di Cagliari (1)                         (Agriculture — Common organisation of the market — Beef
                                                                              and veal — Export refunds — Beef processed before entering
(Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Proof of                    the country of import — International agreements — Effects
standing of the service provider — Possibility of relying on                  — Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic
                 the standing of another company)                             Community, of the one part, and the countries parties to the
                                                                              Charter of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of
                                                                                                   the Gulf, of the other part)
                              (2000/C 63/03)
                                                                                                           (2000/C 63/04)
                       (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                                  (Language of the case: Danish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-176/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                     in the European Court Reports)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna (Regional Adminis-                   In Case C-74/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
trative Court for Sardinia), Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Østre Landsret
proceedings pending before that court between Holst Italia                    (Eastern Regional Court), Denmark, for a preliminary ruling in
SpA and Comune di Cagliari, intervener: Ruhrwasser AG                         the proceedings pending before that court between DAT-
International Water Management — on the interpretation of                     SCHAUB amba and Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                   Fiskeri — on the interpretation of Article 17(2) of Commission
coordination of procedures for the award of public service                    Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                  down common detailed rules for the application of the system
composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Sixth                 of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351,
Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, L. Sevón,                 p. 1) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón
C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet,                    (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathe-
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,                let, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 December 1999,                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
in which it has ruled:                                                        16 December 1999, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 4.3.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 63/3
The second indent of the second subparagraph of Article 17(2) of          Where it is sought to import medicinal product X from Member
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987                State A into Member State B, it is permissible for the person who
laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system       proposes to place the imported product upon the market in Member
of export refunds on agricultural products must be interpreted as         State B to seek and obtain a parallel import licence from the
meaning that the countries parties to the Charter of the Cooperation      competent authority in Member State B without complying with all
Council for the Arab States of the Gulf are not regarded, where           the requirements of Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January
products are processed before being cleared through customs on the        1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law,
territory of one of those countries and then exported to others, as a     regulation or administrative action relating to medicinal products
single non-member country into which all the products resulting from      (OJ, English Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 20), as amended by
that processing have been imported.                                       Council Directive 93/39/EEC of 14 June 1993, if:
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
                                                                          — medicinal product X is the subject of a marketing authorisation
                                                                              granted in Member State A and was the subject of a marketing
                                                                              authorisation which has ceased to have effect in Member State B;
                                                                          — medicinal product Y is the subject of a marketing authorisation
                                                                              granted in Member State B, but is not the subject of a marketing
                                                                              authorisation granted in Member State A;
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 16 December 1999                                 — medicinal product X has the same active ingredients and
                                                                              therapeutic effect as medicinal product Y, but does not use the
                                                                              same excipients and is manufactured by a different manufacturing
in Case C-94/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                      process, where the competent authority in Member State B is in
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s                       a position to verify that medicinal product X complies with the
Bench Division): The Queen v The Licensing Authority                          requirements relating to quality, efficacy and safety in normal
established by the Medicines Act 1968 (represented by                         conditions of use and is in a position to ensure normal
the Medicines Control Agency), ex parte: Rhône-Poulenc                        pharmacovigilance;
                 Rorer Ltd, May & Baker Ltd (1)
(Medicinal products — Marketing authorisation — Parallel                  — the marketing authorisations referred to above were granted to
                              imports)                                        different members of the same group of companies and the
                                                                              manufacturers of medicinal products X and Y are also members
                           (2000/C 63/05)                                     of that group of companies; and
                    (Language of the case: English)                       — companies within the same group as the holder of the marketing
                                                                              authorisation for product X which has been withdrawn in
                                                                              Member State B continue to manufacture and market product X
In Case C-94/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                  in Member States other than Member State B.
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division, United
Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between The Queen and The Licensing                     In such a situation, the competent authority is not required to take
Authority established by the Medicines Act 1968 (represented              into consideration the fact that medicinal product Y was developed
by the Medicines Control Agency), ex parte: Rhône-Poulenc                 and introduced in order to provide a particular benefit to public
Rorer Ltd, May & Baker Ltd — on the interpretation of Council             health which medicinal product X does not provide and/or that that
Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation               particular benefit to public health would not be achieved if product X
of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative              and product Y were both on the market in Member State B at the
action relating to medicinal products (OJ, English Special                same time.
Edition 1965-1966, p. 20), as amended, in particular, by
Council Directive 93/39/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 214,
p. 22), and of the provisions of Community law relating to the
grant of parallel import licences for medicinal products —
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,              (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Cham-
bers), C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch,
P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December 1999, in
which it has ruled: