CELEX: C2002/156/08
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-117/02: Action brought on 27 March 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

C 156/4                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     29.6.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwal-                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
tungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen by order
of that Court of 14 March 2002 in the case of Kohlpharma
                                                                        —     Declare that, by allowing the approval of a project in the
         GmbH against Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                              tourist sector which included construction of housing,
                                                                              hotels and golf clubs in the Ponta do Abano area, without
                         (Case C-112/02)                                      an appropriate assessment of its environmental impact,
                                                                              the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Article 2(1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC(1) of
                         (2002/C 156/07)                                      27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
                                                                              public and private projects on the environment;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  —     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
European Communities by order of the Oberverwaltungs-
gericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Higher Administrat-
ive Court of North Rhine-Westphalia) of 14 March 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 27 March 2002, for a                  Pleas in law and main arguments
preliminary ruling in the case of Kohlpharma GmbH against
Federal Republic of Germany on the following question:
Is it justified under Article 30 EC or other Community law for          The Commission takes the view that the correct transposition
the competent German authority to obstruct the parallel                 of Article 2(1) and Article 4(2) of Directive 85/337/EEC cannot
import of a medicinal product by refusing authorisation under           be relied upon by the Portuguese Republic in order to exempt
the simplified procedure, contrary to Article 28 EC, although           from the assessment obligation provided for in Article 2(1) a
on the one hand it accepts that the medicinal product to be             specific project which, as in the case of the project relating to
imported (Jumex), authorised for Chiese Farmaceutici S.p.A. in          work carried out in the area of Ponta do Abano, although
Italy, is as regards the medically active ingredient (Selegilinhy-      falling within the scope of Annex II to that directive, is likely
drochloride) identical to the medicinal product (Movergan)              to have a significant impact on the environment by virtue of
produced by the German authorisation holder Orion Pharma                their nature, size or location.
GmbH, the medically active ingredient of which is delivered to
the Italian firm by the manufacturer, located in Hungary, on
the basis of a licensing agreement but to the German firm
solely on the basis of a supply agreement with Orion Corp.              (1) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.
Finland, either directly or via Finland, if on the other hand the
German authority does not give, as regards the medically
active ingredient or the excipients, which the authorities
consider to differ both qualitatively and quantitatively in the
present case, reasons to show that the two medicinal products
are not identical, and in particular are not manufactured
according to the same formulation and using the same active
ingredient or that they have the same therapeutic effects?
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State
                                                                        by judgment of that Court of 27 March 2002 in the case
                                                                        of Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee,
                                                                        also acting on behalf of Nederlandse Vereniging tot
                                                                        Bescherming van Vogels against Staatssecretaris van Land-
                                                                                       bouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij
Action brought on 27 March 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                                              (Case C-127/02)
                             Republic
                                                                                                (2002/C 156/09)
                         (Case C-117/02)
                         (2002/C 156/08)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Raad van State
                                                                        (Council of State) of 27 March 2002, received at the Court
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before            Registry on 8 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 March            of Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee, also
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     acting on behalf of Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming
represented by António Caeiros, acting as Agent, with an               van Vogels against Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Natuur-
address for service in Luxembourg.                                      beheer en Visserij on the following questions: