CELEX: C2004/059/03
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-06 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court of 11 November 2003 in Case C-488/01 P: Jean-Claude Martinez (Appeal — Statement of formation of a group under Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament — Lack of political affinities — Retroactive dissolution of the TDI Group — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)

C 59/2                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              6.3.2004
5.    Orders Ciments français SA and the Commission of the                   1.    Dismisses the appeals;
      European Communities to bear their own costs in Case C-211/
      00 P.                                                                  2.    Orders the Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV,
                                                                                   Bayer AG and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical
                                                                                   Industries’ Associations to bear their own costs in relation to
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.08.2000.                                                        Case C-2/01 P;
                                                                             3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                                   the costs in relation to Case C-3/01 P;
                                                                             4.    Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (1) OJ C 79 of 10.03.2001.
                         of 6 January 2004
in Joined Cases C-2/01 P and C-3/01 P: Bundesverband
der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV against Commission of
                 the European Communities (1)
                                                                                                  ORDER OF THE COURT
(Appeals — Competition — Parallel imports — Article 85(1)
of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Meaning of
agreement between undertakings — Proof of the existence of                                          of 11 November 2003
    an agreement — Market in pharmaceutical products)
                                                                                      in Case C-488/01 P: Jean-Claude Martinez (1)
                          (2004/C 59/02)
                                                                             (Appeal — Statement of formation of a group under
                   (Language of the case: German)                            Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European
                                                                             Parliament — Lack of political affinities — Retroactive
                                                                             dissolution of the TDI Group — Appeal manifestly inadmis-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                     sible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                                         (2004/C 59/03)
In Joined Cases C-2/01 P and C-3/01 P: Bundesverband der
Arzneimittel-Importeure eV, established in Mülheim an der                                         (Language of the case: French)
Ruhr (Germany), (Agnets: U. Zinsmeister and W.A. Rehmann),
with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies                                            in the European Court Reports)
(EAEPC), established in Brussels (Belgium), (Agents: M. Epping
and M. Lienemeyer), with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: K. Wiedner and W. Wils, assisted by H.-J. Freund),                  In Case C-488/01 P, Jean-Claude Martinez, a member of
with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by                      the European Parliament, residing in Montpellier (France),
Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: A. Kruse), and by European                         represented by F. Wagner and V. de Poulpiquet de Brescanvel,
Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC): two                    avocats: Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Appeals against the judgment of the Court of First Instance                  Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber,
of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber, Extended                         Extended Composition) in Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99
Composition) of 26 October 2000 in Case T-41/96 Bayer v                      and T-329/99 Martinez and Others v Parliament [2001]
Commission [2000] ECR II-3383, seeking to have that judg-                    ECR II-2823, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
ment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being: Bayer            parties to the proceedings being: European Parliament (Agents:
AG, established in Leverkusen (Germany), (Agent: J. Sedemund)                G. Garzón Clariana, J. Schoo and H. Krück), defendant at first
with an address for service in Luxembourg, and European                      instance, Charles de Gaulle, a member of the European
Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries’ Associations, estab-                Parliament, residing in Paris (France), applicant at first instance,
lished in Geneva (Switzerland), (Agent: A. Woodgate), the                    the Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann,
Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann,                          C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha
C.W.A. Timmermans and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Presidents of                    Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers,
Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, J.-                    D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen,
P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von               F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Bahr, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                       Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             order on 11 November 2003, the operative part of which is as
on 6 January 2004, in which it:                                              follows:
 ---pagebreak--- 6.3.2004               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 59/3
1.   The appeal is dismissed.                                            3.     Must Article 1(2) of Decision 94/381/EC, read as far as
                                                                                necessary in conjunction with the provisions of Article 17
2.   Mr Martinez is ordered to pay the costs of the present                     of Directive 90/425/EEC and Article 17 of Directive 89/
     proceedings.                                                               662/EEC, be interpreted as giving rise to an obligation for
                                                                                the Commission or the Council to grant an authorisation
3.   Mr Martinez is also ordered to pay the Parliament’s costs in               as referred to therein if the system which the requesting
     connection with the application for interim measures in Case               Member State applies or intends to apply is in fact suitable
     C-488/01 P-R.                                                              for distinguishing between protein from ruminant and
                                                                                non-ruminant species?
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.                                                 4.     To what extent does the answer to Question 3 entail a
                                                                                restriction of the right, or of the State’s obligation referred
                                                                                to in Question 1, to challenge a failure to grant an
                                                                                authorisation such as that at issue in this case under
                                                                                Article 175 of the EC Treaty (Article 232 EC), or to
                                                                                challenge a refusal to grant such an authorisation under
                                                                                Article 173 of the EC Treaty (Article 230 EC)?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                         (Question 3 is relevant whether the question referred to
Nederlanden by order of that Court of 5 December 2003                           in Question 1 must be answered according to Netherlands
in the case of the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of                        national law or whether that answer must be determined
Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries) against                           according to Community law, in the latter case unless the
1. Ten Kate Holding Musselkanaal BV, 2. Ten Kate                                answer to Question 2(a) is in the negative. Question 4 is
Europrodukten BV, and 3. Ten Kate Produktie Maatschap-                          relevant only in the light of an answer to Question 2(b).)
                              pij BV
                         (Case C-511/03)
                          (2004/C 59/04)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
                                                                         Hamburg by order of that Court of 12 November 2003 in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   the case of Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH against
European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der                                          Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Nederlanden of 5 December 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 8 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the                                         (Case C-515/03)
case of the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Agriculture,
Nature Management and Fisheries) against 1. Ten Kate Holding
Musselkanaal BV, 2. Ten Kate Europrodukten BV, and 3. Ten                                             (2004/C 59/05)
Kate Produktie Maatschappij BV on the following questions:
1.   Must the question whether, in a case such as this, the              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     State has an obligation towards a citizen who has an                European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Ham-
     interest in it, such as Ten Kate, to make use of the legal          burg (Hamburg Finance Court) of 12 November 2003, received
     remedies available to it under Article 175 of the EC                at the Court Registry on 9 December 2003, for a preliminary
     Treaty (Article 232 EC) or Article 173 of the EC Treaty             ruling in the case of Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH against
     (Article 230 EC) and, in the event of failure to comply             Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the following question:
     with such an obligation, to pay compensation for the
     damage sustained as a consequence by the citizen con-
     cerned, be answered by reference to rules of Netherlands            Is Article 17(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1) as amended
     national law or by reference to rules of Community law?             by Regulation (EC) No 1384/95 (2) to be interpreted as
                                                                         meaning that a product is considered to have been imported
2.   If the question referred to in Question 1 must be answered          if, after its release for free circulation in a non-member country,
     wholly or partly by reference to rules of Community law:            it undergoes substantial processing or working within the
                                                                         meaning of Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 2913/92 (3) and
     (a)   Are there circumstances in which Community law                then is brought back into the Community upon drawback and
           can entail an obligation and liability as referred to in      payment of the normal import duties?
           that question?
     (b) If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative,           (1) OJ L 351, p. 1.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 134, p. 14.
           which rules of Community law must be used as the
                                                                         (3) OJ L 302, p. 1.
           criterion when answering the question referred to
           in Question 1 in a specific case such as this?