CELEX: C2001/118/22
Language: en
Date: 2001-04-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-75/01: Action brought on 14 February 2001 by Commission of the European Communities against Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

C 118/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.4.2001
      (a)  to refer to physiological or pharmacological effects,         Pleas in law and main arguments
           in particular those which preserve youthfulness,
           inhibit signs of ageing, promote slimming or main-
           tain health, or to create the impression of any such          The Commission takes the view that the Grand Duchy of
           effect;                                                       Luxembourg has not adopted the necessary measures to
                                                                         implement the provisions set out in its application and that
                                                                         the existing provisions relied on do not constitute full and
      (b) to refer to case-histories, recommendations made by
                                                                         correct transposition.
           doctors or medical experts’ reports;
      (c)  to use health-related, pictorial or stylised represen-
                                                                         (1) OJ 1992 L 206, p. 2.
           tations of organs of the human body, pictures
           of members of the health-care professions or of
           sanatoria or other pictures or illustrations referring
           to health-care activities?
2.    Do Directive 79/112/EEC or Articles 28 and 30 EC
      preclude a national provision which, on the marketing of
      foodstuffs, permits health-related information such as
      that described in Question 1 to be affixed thereto
      only after prior authorisation by the competent federal
      minister, whereby a condition of authorisation is that the         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Central
      health-related information be consistent with protecting           Administrativo, 2a Secção by judgment of that court of
      the consumer from being misled?                                    19 December 2000 in the case of EDM — Empresa de
                                                                           Desenvolvimento Mineiro, SA, against Fazenda Pública
                                                                                                   (Case C-77/01)
                                                                                                  (2001/C 118/23)
Action brought on 14 February 2001 by Commission of                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the European Communities against Grand Duchy of                          European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal Central
                           Luxembourg                                    Administrativo, 2a Secção (Second Chamber of the Central
                                                                         Administrative Court) of 19 December 2000, which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 15 February 2001, for a
                          (Case C-75/01)                                 preliminary ruling in the case of EDM — Empresa de
                                                                         Desenvolvimento Mineiro, SA, against Fazenda Pública on the
                         (2001/C 118/22)                                 following questions:
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             Question 1
ties on 14 February 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by R.B. Wainwright and J. Adda,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.             Does the granting of annually repaid loans by a holding
                                                                         company to its partners constitute ‘economic activity’, within
                                                                         the meaning of Article 4(2) of the Sixth Directive (1), where
The applicant claims that the Court should                               that company’s principle activity is to manage those partners
                                                                         and, to a certain extent, also guarantee the loans contracted by
—     Declare that, by failing to bring into force all the measures      them?
      necessary to implement fully and correctly Articles 1,
      4(5), 5(4), 6, 7, 12(1)(b) and (c), 12(2), 12(4), 13(1)(b)
      and 13(2), 14, 15, 16(1), 22(b) and (c), and 23(2) in
                                                                         Question 2
      conjunction with annexes I, II, IV, V and VI, of Council
      Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
      of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), the           Likewise: the performance of operations, in the context of a
      Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its                 consortium as in the present case, by a company which is both
      obligations under that directive and the third paragraph           a member and the administrator of the consortium, particularly
      of Article 249 of the EC Treaty; and                               where they exceed its share as stipulated in the contract, in
                                                                         return for payment in consideration of its value by the other
—     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.              members of the consortium?