CELEX: C1995/315/22
Language: en
Date: 1995-11-25 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-315/95)

25 . 11 . 95             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 315 / 11
Action brought on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of                           provisions necessary to comply with Directives
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic                        92/45/EEC ( ] ), 92/46/EEC ( 2 ), 92/65/EEC ( 3 ), 92/88/
                           ( Case C-3 13/95                                     EEC (4 ), 92/116/EEC ( 5 ), 92/117/EEC ( 6 ) and 92/118/
                                                                                EEC ( 7), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                              ( 95/C 315/20 )
                                                                                obligations under those Directives and the EC Treaty .
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                 2 . Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
3 October 1995 by the Commission of the European                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities , represented by Eugenio de March, Legal
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                  Article 189 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                      is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                                                State to which it is addressed, places Member States under
                                                                          an obligation to comply with the time limits prescribed in
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              directives for their transposition . In the case of Directives
                                                                          92/45/EEC, 92/46/EEC, 92/65/EEC, 92/116/EEC, 92/ 117/
1 . Declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed                   EEC and 92/ 118/EEC, the periods prescribed expired on
       period the laws, regulations and administrative                    1 January 1994 and, in the case of Directive 92/88/EEC, it
       provisions necessary to comply with Directives                     expired on 31 December 1993 ; in each case, the Italian
       92/66/EEC C ) and 92/119/EEC ( 2 ), the Italian Republic           Republic had failed to adopt the provision necessary to
       has failed to fulfil its obligations under those Directives        comply with the Directive in question by the required
                                                                          date .
       and the EC Treaty .
2 . Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                         0)   OJ   No  L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p . 35 .
                                                                          (2)  OJ   No  L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                          (3)  OJ   No  L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p . 54 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       (4)  OJ   No  L 321 , 6 . 11 . 1992 , p . 24 .
                                                                          (s)  OJ   No  L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 1 .
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive             (6)   OJ  No  L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 38 .
is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member              (7)   OJ  No  L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 49 .
State to which it is addressed, places Member States under
an obligation to comply with the time limits prescribed in
directives for their transposition .
The prescribed periods expired on 1 October 1993 , at which
time the Italian Republic had failed to adopt the provisions              Action brought on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of
necessary for implementation of the Directives referred to in                the European Communities against the Italian Republic
the forms of order sought by the Commission .                                                          ( Case C-3 15 /95 )
                                                                                                         ( 95 /C 315/22 )
 (') OJ No L 260 , 5 . 9 . 1992 , p . 1 .
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 69 .                              An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                           3 October 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Eugenio de March, Legal
                                                                           Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 Action brought on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of                     Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
    the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                            ( Case C-3 14/95 )                             The applicant claims that the Court should :
                               ( 95/C 315/21 )
                                                                           1 . Declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
                                                                                 periods the laws, regulations and administrative
 An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                       provisions necessary to comply with Directives
 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                             93/48/EEC {'), 93/49/EEC ( 2 ), 93/52/EEC ( 3 ), 93/61 /
  3 October 1995 by the Commission of the European                               EEC (4 ) and 93/85/EEC ( 5 ), the Italian Republic has
  Communities, represented by Eugenio de March, Legal                            failed to fulfil its obligations under those Directives and
 Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                        the EC Treaty .
  Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                 2 . Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  1 . Declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed                  Article 189 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive
        periods the laws, regulations and administrative                    is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member
 ---pagebreak--- No C 315/ 12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25 . 11 . 95
State to which it is addressed, places Member States under               IV . Where the infringement referred to in III above consists
an obligation to comply with the time limits prescribed in                      in the submission of samples with a view to the
directives for their transposition. In the case of Directives                   registration of a medicinal product, as referred to in I
93/48/EEC, 93/49/EEC and 93/61 /EEC, the periods                                above, and in consequence thereof a judicial
prescribed expired on 31 December 1993 , in respect of                          prohibition of the kind referred to in III above is
Directive 93/52/EEC, on 1 January 1994 and, in the case of                      imposed for a period which exceeds the maximum
Directive 93/85/EEC, on 15 November 1993 ; in each case ,                       period prescribed by Directives 65/65/EEC ( j ) and
the Italian Republic had failed to adopt the provisions                         75/319/EEC ( 2) for the registration of medicinal
necessary to comply with the Directive in question by the                       products, does the fact that the duration of the
required date .                                                                 prohibition exceeds that maximum render the
                                                                                prohibition incompatible to that extent with
(1)  OJ No  L  250 , 7 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                    Community law and, if so, does that mean that the
(2)  OJ No  L  250,  7 . 10, 1993 , p . 9 .                                     person on whom the prohibition is imposed can invoke
(■') OJ No  L  175 , 19 . 7 . 1993 , p . 21 .                                   that incompatibility, by virtue of Community law, as
(4)  OJ No  L  250,  7. 10 . 1993 , p . 19 .
(s)  OJ No  L  259 , 18 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                                against the former proprietor of the patent ?
                                                                         (') OJ , English Special Edition 1965— 1966 , p. 20 .
                                                                         ( 2 ) OJ No L 147, p . 13 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 29 September
1995 in the case of Generics BV v. Smith Kline & French
                        Laboratories Limited                             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo
                                                                         Social No 1 , Santiago de Compostela, by order of that court
                           ( Case C-3 16/95 )                            of 21 September 1995 in the case of Jose Ferreiro Alvite v.
                             ( 95/C 315 /23 )                            Instituto Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de la
                                                                                                   Seguridad Social
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                                   ( Case C-320/95 )
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of                                                  ( 95/C 315/24 )
29 September 1995 , which was received at the Court
Registry on 5 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
case of Generics BV v. Smith Kline & French Laboratories                 European Communities by an order of the Juzgado de lo
Limited on the following questions :                                     Social ( Social Court ) No 1 , Santiago de Compostela, of
                                                                         21 September 1995 , which was received at the Court
   I. Does a rule of national law which confers on the                   Registry on 16 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
      proprietor of a patent in respect of certain medicinal             case of Jose Ferreiro Alvite v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo
      products the right to oppose, during the currency of               and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social on three
      that patent, the submission by another person of                   questions, which are identical to those referred in Case
      samples of the patented medicinal products ( or of                 C-88/95 ( OJ No C 137 of 3 June 1995 , p. 12 ).
      medicinal products produced in accordance with the
      patented process ) to the authority responsible for the
      registration of medicinal products, have to be regarded
      as a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative
      restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 30            Appeal brought on 16 October 1995 by Stichting
      of the EC Treaty ?                                                 Greenpeace Council ( Greenpeace International ), Domingo
                                                                         Viera González, Pablo Guedes García, José Ignacio Trojaola
 II . If so, is that measure covered by the exception laid               Chávez, Aurora González González, Pedro Melián Castro,
      down in Article 36 of the EC Treaty in respect of                  Caridad Sánchez Artiles, José Juan Melián Melián, Carmen
      restrictions which are justified on the ground of the              Guadalupe Gómez Castro, Clara Donate Hernández,
      protection of industrial property ?                                Balbina Martín Espinóla, José Hernández Morín, Germán
                                                                         Peña Hernández, Antonio Cabrera Expósito, Valentín
III. Where, during the currency of a patent, an                          Hernández Vaquero, Peter Reinhard, Julio González
      infringement of that patent is committed under                     Domínguez, Tagorar Ecologista Alternativo and Comisíon
      national law and the person committing that                        Canaria contra la Contaminácion against the order made on
      infringement or a third person is liable to profit from            9 August 1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First
      the infringement following the expiry of the patent, or            Instance of the European Communities in Case T-5 85/93
      the proprietor of the patent is liable to suffer some              between Stichting Greenpeace Council ( Greenpeace
      disadvantage as a result of the infringement following             International ) and 18 others and the Commission of the
      the expiry of the patent, does a judicial prohibition              European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of
      imposed in order to prevent that potential harm which                                                Spain
      restrains, for a specified period after the expiry of the
      patent, the placing on the market of products which                                        ( Case C-321 /95 P )
      were protected by the patent during its currency,                                               ( 95/C 315/25 )
      constitute a measure which is prohibited by Article 30
      of the EC Treaty and which is not covered by the                   An appeal against the order made on 9 August 1995 by the
      exception contained in Article 36 of the EC Treaty ?               First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European