CELEX: C2002/180/24
Language: en
Date: 2002-07-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-210/02: Action brought on 4 June 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

C 180/14              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       27.7.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal               (7) Is ‘extraction’ in Article 7 of the Directive limited to the
(England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that                        transfer of the contents of the database directly from the
court dated 24 May 2002, in the case of 1) The British                        database to another medium, or does it also include the
Horseracing Board Limited, 2) The Jockey Club and                             transfer of works, data or other materials, which are
3) Weatherbys Group Limited against William Hill Organ-                       derived indirectly from the database, without having
                         ization Limited                                      direct access to the database?
                        (Case C-203/02)                                 (8) Is ‘re-utilisation’ in Article 7 of the Directive limited to
                                                                              the making available to the public of the contents of the
                                                                              database directly from the database, or does it also include
                        (2002/C 180/23)                                       the making available to the public of works, data or other
                                                                              materials which are derived indirectly from the database,
                                                                              without having direct access to the database?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        (9) Is ‘re-utilisation’ in Article 7 of the Directive limited to
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
                                                                              the first making available to the public of the contents of
(England and Wales) (Civil Division) dated 24 May 2002,
                                                                              the database?
which was received at the Court Registry on 31 May 2002, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of 1) The British Horseracing
Board Limited, 2) The Jockey Club and 3) Weatherbys Group               (10) In Article 7(5) of the Directive what is meant by ‘acts
Limited against William Hill Organization Limited, on the                     which conflict with a normal exploitation of that database
following questions:                                                          or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the
                                                                              maker of the database’? In particular, are the facts and
(1) May either of the expressions:                                            matters in paragraphs 40-47 above in the context of the
                                                                              facts and matters in paragraphs 32-35 above capable of
     (a)  ‘substantial part of the contents of the database’; or              amounting to such acts?
     (b) ‘insubstantial parts of the contents of the database’          (11) Does Article 10(3) of the Directive mean that, whenever
                                                                              there is a ‘substantial change’ to the contents of a
     in Article 7 of the Directive (1) include works, data or                 database, qualifying the resulting database for its own
     other materials derived from the database but which do                   term of protection, the resulting database must be
     not have the same systematic or methodical arrangement                   considered to be a new, separate database, including for
     of and individual accessibility to be found in the database?             the purposes of Article 7(5)?
(2) What is meant by ‘obtaining’ in Article 7(1) of the
     Directive? In particular, are the facts and matters in             (1) Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                            of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases. OJ L 77,
     paragraphs 24-31 above capable of amounting to such
                                                                            27.3.1996, p. 20.
     obtaining?
(3) Is ‘verification’ in Article 7(1) of the Directive limited to
     ensuring from time to time that information contained in
     a database is or remains correct?
(4) What is meant in Article 7(1) of the Directive, by the
     expressions:
                                                                        Action brought on 4 June 2002 by the Commission of the
     (a)  ‘a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively ... of the
                                                                        European Communities against the United Kingdom of
          contents of that database’? and
                                                                                      Great Britain and Northern Ireland
     (b) ‘a substantial part, evaluated quantitatively ... of the
          contents of that database’?                                                            (Case C-210/02)
(5) What is meant in Article 7(5) of the Directive, by the
     expression ‘insubstantial parts of the database’?                                           (2002/C 180/24)
(6) In particular, in each case:
     (a)  does ‘substantial’ mean something more than ‘insig-           An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
          nificant’ and, if so, what?                                   Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities on 4 June 2002 by the Commission of
     (b) does ‘insubstantial’ part simply mean that it is not           the European Communities, represented by Thomas Cusack,
          ‘substantial’?                                                acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.7.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 180/15
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare that by failing to adopt for Gibraltar all the laws,        1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
       regulations or administrative provisions necessary to                  and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       comply with Council Directive 97/43/Euratom (1) of                     Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of
       30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals against               the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the
       the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical               processing of personal data and the protection of privacy
       exposure, and repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom, or in                in the telecommunications sector (1), the Grand Duchy of
       any event by failing to communicate them to the                        Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
       Commission, the United Kingdom has failed fully to fulfil              directive;
       its obligations under that Directive.
                                                                        2.    Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
(2) order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
According to Article 192(1) of the Treaty, Member States shall          The period prescribed for transposition expired on 24 October
take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,           1998 and 24 October 2000 (as regards Article 5 of the
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty      directive), respectively.
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
Community.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 24 of 30.1.1998, p. 1.
The obligation on the part of the United Kingdom to take
measures in order to comply with the directive is not disputed.
Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission
of the provisions adopted to comply with the directive
concerned with regard to Gibraltar, and since the Commission
is in possession of no other information enabling it to conclude        Action brought on 5 June 2002 by the Commission of the
that the United Kingdom has adopted the necessary provisions,             European Communities against the Republic of Austria
it is compelled to assume that the United Kingdom has not yet
adopted such provisions and has thus failed to fulfil its
obligations under the directive.                                                                 (Case C-212/02)
                                                                                                 (2002/C 180/26)
(1) JO L 180 of 9.7.1997, p. 22.
                                                                        An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 June
                                                                        2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Michel Nolin, of the Commission’s Legal
Action brought on 4 June 2002 by the Commission of the                  Service, acting as Agent, assisted by Rainer Roniger, Rechtsan-
European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                         walt, of Haarmann and Hemmelrath, Brussels, having an
                           Luxembourg                                   address for service at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of
                                                                        the Commission’s Legal Service, Centre Wagner C 254.
                         (Case C-211/02)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2002/C 180/25)
                                                                        1.    Rule that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
                                                                              obligations under the remedial Directives 89/665/EEC (1)
                                                                              and 92/13/EEC (2), in particular the obligations under
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                           Articles 2(1)(a) and (b) thereof, since the Land procure-
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                  ment laws of the Länder of Salzburg, Steiermark, Niederös-
ties on 4 June 2002 by the Commission of the European                         terreich and Kärnten do not ensure in all cases that the
Communities, represented by C. Schmidt, acting as Agent,                      award decision is open to review in a procedure whereby
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                    an unsuccessful tenderer can have that decision set aside;