CELEX: C2003/171/03
Language: en
Date: 2003-07-19 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 20 May 2003 in Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungsgerichtshof and Oberster Gerichtshof): Rechnungshof (C-465/00) v Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others and between Christa Neukomm (C-138/01), Joseph Lauermann (C-139/01) and Österreichischer Rundfunk (Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Protection of private life — Disclosure of data on the income of employees of bodies subject to control by the Rechnungshof)

19.7.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 171/3
relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct                    those Treaty provisions. It is for the referring court to determine
insurance other than life assurance (OJ 1973 L 228, p. 3), as                      whether that scheme is in fact justified by social policy objectives
amended by Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June                          and to examine, in particular, whether the cover provided by
1988 (OJ 1988 L 172, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                             that compulsory insurance scheme is proportionate to those
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,                                objectives.
C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann
and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;                    4.    The term ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 92 of the
H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                        EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC) does not
given a judgment on 22 May 2003, in which it has ruled:                            cover a body such as the Organismos Ellenikon Georgikon
                                                                                   Asfaliseon (ELGA) in respect of its activities under the
                                                                                   compulsory insurance scheme against natural risks.
1.    The EC Treaty provisions on the common agricultural policy             (1 ) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
      and Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of the Council of 29 Octo-
      ber 1975 on the common organisation of the market in
      poultrymeat, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
      No 1235/89 of 3 May 1989, do not preclude a quasi-fiscal
      charge established by a Member State, such as a special
      insurance contribution levied on sales and purchases of domestic
      agricultural products which fall within the common organis-
      ation for the market in poultrymeat, the revenue from which is                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      used to fund a public body responsible for the prevention of,
      and compensation for, damage caused to agricultural holdings
                                                                                                        of 20 May 2003
      by natural risks in that State.
                                                                             in Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01 (Refer-
      Those Treaty provisions and Regulation No 2777/75, as                  ence for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungsgericht-
      amended by Regulation No 1235/89, do preclude such a                   shof and Oberster Gerichtshof): Rechnungshof (C-465/00)
      quasi-fiscal charge however where it is such as to undermine the       v Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others and between
      aims and objects of the common organisation of the market in           Christa Neukomm (C-138/01), Joseph Lauermann (C-139/
      question and, in particular, where it does in fact restrict intra-                 01) and Österreichischer Rundfunk (1)
      Community trade.
                                                                             (Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
      It is for the national court to decide whether the contribution        personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Protection of private
      does in fact have that effect.                                         life — Disclosure of data on the income of employees of
                                                                                      bodies subject to control by the Rechnungshof)
2.    Community law on the free movement of goods, in particular                                        (2003/C 171/03)
      Articles 9 and 12 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
      Articles 23 EC and 25 EC), Article 16 of the EC Treaty                                     (Language of the case: German)
      (repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam) and Article 95 of the
      EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC), does not
      preclude a contribution such as that referred to in paragraph 1        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      of the operative part of the present judgment.                                             in the European Court Reports)
3.    Benefits such as those provided by the Organismos Ellenikon            In Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01: References
      Georgikon Asfaliseon (ELGA) under the compulsory insurance             to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Verfassungsgerichts-
      scheme against natural risks do not fall within the scope of           hof (C-465/00) and the Oberster Gerichtshof (C-138/01 and
      either Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,              C-139/01) (Austria) for preliminary rulings in the proceedings
      Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50         pending before those courts between Rechnungshof (C-465/
      EC) or First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973              00) and Österreichischer Rundfunk, Wirtschaftskammer Stei-
      on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative            ermark, Marktgemeinde Kaltenleutgeben, Land Niederösterre-
      provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business       ich, Österreichische Nationalbank, Stadt Wiener Neustadt,
      of direct insurance other than life assurance, as amended by           Austrian Airlines, Österreichische Luftverkehrs-AG, and
      Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988.                   between Christa Neukomm (C-138/01), Joseph Lauermann
                                                                             (C-139/01) and Österreichischer Rundfunk, on the interpret-
                                                                             ation of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and
      Such a compulsory insurance scheme may, however, constitute            of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of
      a restriction on the freedom of insurance companies established        individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and
      in other Member States, who wish to offer services covering            on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31),
      such risks in Greece, to provide services, within the meaning of       the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
 ---pagebreak--- C 171/4                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               19.7.2003
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen                  in the proceedings pending before that court between Ravil
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, A. La                 SARL og Bellon import SARL, Biraghi SpA, on the interpret-
Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von                 ation of Article 29 EC, the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez
Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate                 Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-               and C. W. A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gul-
trar, has given a judgment on 20 May 2003, in which it has                   mann (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris,
ruled:                                                                       F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues,
                                                                             Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
1.    Articles 6(1)(c) and 7(c) and (e) of Directive 95/46/EC of the         Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995              20 May 2003, in which it has ruled:
      on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
      personal data and on the free movement of such data do not
      preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main
      proceedings, provided that it is shown that the wide disclosure
      not merely of the amounts of the annual income above a certain
      threshold of persons employed by the bodies subject to control         1.    As regards the period prior to the entry into force of Commission
      by the Rechnungshof but also of the names of the recipients of               Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the
      that income is necessary for and appropriate to the objective of             registration of geographical indications and designations of
      proper management of public funds pursued by the legislature,                origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
      that being for the national courts to ascertain.                             Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, Article 29 EC must be
                                                                                   interpreted as not precluding a convention concluded between
2.    Articles 6(1)(c) and 7(c) and (e) of Directive 95/46 are directly            two Member States A and B, such as the Convention between
      applicable, in that they may be relied on by an individual before            the French Republic and the Italian Republic on the protection
      the national courts to oust the application of rules of national             of designations of origin, indications of provenance and names
      law which are contrary to those provisions.                                  of certain products, signed in Rome on 28 April 1964, from
                                                                                   making applicable in Member State A national legislation of
                                                                                   Member State B, such as that referred to by the national court,
( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.03.2001 and OJ C 173 of 16.06.2001.                             under which the designation of origin of a cheese, protected in
                                                                                   Member State B, is reserved, for cheese marketed in grated
                                                                                   form, to cheese grated and packaged in the region of production.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      2.    Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on
                                                                                   the protection of geographical indications and designations of
                           of 20 May 2003                                          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
in Case C-469/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                          and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
the Cour de cassation): Ravil SARL v Bellon import SARL,                           Union is founded, must be interpreted as not precluding the use
                            Biraghi SpA ( 1)                                       of a protected designation of origin from being subject to the
                                                                                   condition that operations such as the grating and packaging of
(Protected designations of origin — Regulation (EEC)                               the product take place in the region of production, where such a
No 2081/92 — Regulation (EEC) No 1107/96 — ‘Grana                                  condition is laid down in the specification.
Padano’ freshly grated — Specification — Convention
between two Member States — Condition that the cheese is
grated and packaged in the region of production —
Articles 29 EC and 30 EC — Justification — Whether the
condition may be relied on against third parties — Legal                     3.    Where the use of the protected designation of origin ‘Grana
                        certainty— Publicity)                                      Padano’ for cheese marketed in grated form is made subject to
                                                                                   the condition that grating and packaging operations be carried
                                                                                   out in the region of production, this constitutes a measure
                           (2003/C 171/04)
                                                                                   having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports
                                                                                   within the meaning of Article 29 EC, but may be regarded as
                     (Language of the case: French)                                justified, and hence compatible with that provision.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             4.    However, the condition in question may not be relied on against
                                                                                   economic operators, as it was not brought to their knowledge
In Case C-469/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                         by adequate publicity in Community legislation. Nevertheless,
EC by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling                      the principle of legal certainty does not preclude that condition