CELEX: C2001/079/30
Language: en
Date: 2001-03-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-16/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 18 December 2000 in the case of Paul Dieter Haug against Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien

10.3.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 79/17
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrät-               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
ten (Supreme Administrative Court) — by decision of                     richtshof by order of that court of 18 December 2000
that court of 21 December 2000 in the case of Paranova                  in the case of Paul Dieter Haug against Unabhängiger
Läkemedel AB, Farmagon A/S, Medartuum AB, K.G. Net-                                         Verwaltungssenat Wien
Pharma AB, Orifarm AB, Trans Euro Medical AB, Cross
Pharma AB and MedImport Scandinavia AB v Läke-
          medelsverket (Medical Products Agency)                                                 (Case C-16/01)
                                                                                                 (2001/C 79/30)
                         (Case C-15/01)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
                                                                        hof (Administrative Court of Appeal) of 18 December 2000
                                                                        which was received at the Court Registry on 15 January 2001,
                         (2001/C 79/29)                                 for a preliminary ruling in the case of Paul Dieter Haug
                                                                        against Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Independent
                                                                        Administrative Chamber for Vienna) on the following ques-
                                                                        tions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the Regeringsrätten
                                                                        1.   Does Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of
— of 21 December 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                             18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of
Registry on 15 January 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                             the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation
case of Paranova Läkemedel AB, Farmagon A/S, Medartuum
                                                                             and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate
AB, K.G. NetPharma AB, Orifarm AB, Trans Euro Medical
                                                                             consumer (now consolidated in European Parliament and
AB, Cross Pharma AB and MedImport Scandinavia AB v
                                                                             Council Directive 2000/13/EC of 20 March 2000 — OJ
Läkemedelsverket on the following questions:
                                                                             2000 L 109, p. 29), under which — subject to Com-
                                                                             munity provisions applicable to natural mineral waters
                                                                             and to foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses — the
1.   Is it compatible with Articles 28 and 30 EC to revoke a                 labelling and methods used may not attribute to any
     marketing authorisation for a medicinal product import-                 foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or curing a
     ed as a parallel import on the ground that the marketing                human disease, or suggest that it possesses such proper-
     authorisation for the directly imported medicinal product               ties, preclude national legislation which makes it an
     has been revoked at the request of the holder of the                    offence when marketing foodstuffs:
     authorisation for reasons unconnected with the safety of
     the medicinal product? Does the answer depend on what                   (a)   to refer to physiological or pharmacological effects,
     specific reasons have given rise to that request or on                        in particular those which preserve youthfulness,
     whether the holder of the authorisation or companies                          inhibit signs of ageing, promote slimming or main-
     belonging to the same group in other Member States                            tain health, or to create the impression of any such
     continue to sell the medicinal product to which the                           effect;
     parallel imports relate on the basis of marketing authoris-
     ations granted there?
                                                                             (b) to refer to case-histories, recommendations made by
                                                                                   doctors or medical experts’ reports;
2.   If the parallel importers rely on a new marketing authoris-             (c)   to use health-related, pictorial or stylised represen-
     ation for a directly imported medicinal product rather                        tations of organs of the human body, pictures
     than on the old marketing authorisation, is authorisation                     of members of the health-care professions or of
     for the continued marketing of the medicinal product                          sanatoria or other pictures or illustrations referring
     imported as a parallel import precluded by the fact                           to health-care activities?
     that that medicinal product and the directly imported
     medicinal product which is covered by the new marketing
                                                                        2.   Do Directive 79/112/EEC or Articles 28 and 30 EC
     authorisation are different in the sense that the medicinal
                                                                             preclude a national provision which, on the placing into
     product imported as a parallel import is sold in the form
     of a capsule containing a certain acid (omeprazole) while               circulation of foodstuffs, permits health-related infor-
                                                                             mation such as that described in Question (1) to be
     the directly imported medicinal product is sold in the
                                                                             affixed thereto only after prior authorisation by the
     form of a tablet containing a magnesium salt of the acid?
                                                                             competent federal minister, whereby a condition of
                                                                             authorisation is that the health-related information is
                                                                             consistent with protecting the consumer from being
                                                                             misled?