CELEX: C2001/150/23
Language: en
Date: 2001-05-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-113/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Förvaltningsdomstolen (Finnish Supreme Administrative Court) — by decision of that court of 8 March 2001 in the case of Paranova Oy, Esbo, v Läkemedelsverket (Medical Products Agency)

C 150/12               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      19.5.2001
—     Infringement of Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now                  (2) if so, is the Member State of nationality entitled to refuse:
      Article 87 EC): The Court of First Instance failed to take
      into consideration the legal context: La Poste is required             a)     to revoke any preliminary obstacle to the entry of
      to offer any of Chronopost’s competitors who so requests                      the non-national spouse into that Member State (on
      access to its network on similar terms, which clearly                         the facts of this case an outstanding deportation
      indicates that the relationship between La Poste and                          order); and
      Chronopost does not entail a selective advantage for the
      benefit of Chronopost.
                                                                             b)     to accord the non-national spouse a right of entry
                                                                                    into its territory?
—     Breach of the obligation to state reasons: The Court of
      First Instance ought properly to have explained the
      reasoning which led it to conclude — solely because of
      the existence of a reserved sector — that La Poste’s
      manner of taking into account its full costs was unsatisfac-
      tory.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
                                                                        Förvaltningsdomstolen (Finnish Supreme Administrative
                                                                        Court) — by decision of that court of 8 March 2001 in
                                                                        the case of Paranova Oy, Esbo, v Läkemedelsverket
                                                                                           (Medical Products Agency)
                                                                                                   (Case C-113/01)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration
Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom), by order of that court                                           (2001/C 150/23)
of 3 October 2000, in the case of Secretary of State for
        the Home Department against Hacene Akrich
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by a decision of the Högsta För-
                        (Case C-109/01)                                 valtningsdomstolen of 8 March 2001, which was received at
                                                                        the Court Registry on 14 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                        in the case of Paranova Oy, Esbo, v Läkemedelsverket on the
                        (2001/C 150/22)                                 following questions:
                                                                        1.   Is it compatible with Articles 28 and 30 EC for a national
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       agency to decide that a marketing authorisation for
European Communities by an order of the Immigration Appeal                   a medicinal product imported as a parallel import
Tribunal (United Kingdom) of 3 October 2000, which was                       automatically comes to an end if the original marketing
received at the Court Registry on 7 March 2001, for a                        authorisation for the medicinal product has been with-
preliminary ruling in the case of Secretary of State for the                 drawn at the holder’s request for reasons unconnected
Home Department against Hacene Akrich, on the following                      with the effectiveness or the safety of the medicinal
question:                                                                    product and despite the fact that the product has a valid
                                                                             marketing authorisation in the Member State from which
                                                                             the parallel imports come?
Where a national of a Member State is married to a third
country national who does not qualify under national legis-             2.   If Community law imposes restrictions or conditions on
lation to enter or reside in that Member State, and moves to                 the right of a national agency to decide that a marketing
another Member State with the non-national spouse, intending                 authorisation for parallel imports comes to an end in the
to exercise Community law rights by working there for only a                 situation referred to in Question 1, what importance
limited period of time in order thereafter to claim the benefit              should be accorded to the facts that
of Community law rights when returning to the Member State
of nationality together with the non-national spouse:
                                                                             a)     the holder of the original marketing authorisation
                                                                                    has obtained a new marketing authorisation for a
(1) is the Member State of nationality entitled to regard the                       medicinal product designed to replace the original
      intention of the couple, when moving to the other                             medicinal product but that new product is not in
      Member State, to claim the benefit of Community law                           the same pharmaceutical form (tablets instead of
      rights when returning to the Member State of nationality,                     capsules) and the active ingredient is not exactly the
      notwithstanding the non-national spouse’s lack of qualifi-                    same (magnesium Omeprazole instead of Omepra-
      cation under national legislation, as a reliance on Com-                      zole); on the other hand, the national agency con-
      munity law in order to evade the application of national                      siders that the medicinal products are bioequivalent
      legislation; and                                                              and that they have the same therapeutic effect;
 ---pagebreak--- 19.5.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 150/13
     b)    subsequent control of the effectiveness and safety of       Pleas in law and main arguments
           the medicinal product is possibly made more diffi-
           cult by the fact that the marketing authorisation for
           the original medicinal product has been withdrawn;          The period for compliance laid down in the directive referred
                                                                       to in the conclusions of the Commission expired on 1 January
                                                                       1993 without the United Kingdom having enacted the pro-
     c)    the medicinal product imported as a parallel import
                                                                       visions necessary to implement Articles 5(1) and 6(1) of that
           has been widely used over many years in Member
                                                                       directive. The United Kingdom is therefore in breach of
           States and it is improbable that its continued sale
                                                                       Articles 3 and 13 of the said directive.
           presents a danger to public health?
3.   If, in the situation referred to in Question 1, Articles 28
     and 30 EC allow it to be found that the marketing                 (1) OJ L 76, 23.03.1992, p. 14.
     authorisation granted for a parallel import has expired,
     may it be decided that the marketing authorisation for
     the parallel import expired immediately the original
     marketing authorisation was withdrawn, without
     allowing the parallel importer any time to adapt his
     activity? Do any of the circumstances referred to in
     Question 2 affect the question whether it may be decided
     that the marketing authorisation for a parallel import
     expires immediately?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
                                                                       (England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court
                                                                       of 14 December 2000, in the case of KB against 1) National
                                                                       Health Service Pensions Agency, 2) Secretary of State for
                                                                                                       Health
                                                                                                 (Case C-117/01)
Action brought on 14 March 2001 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the United Kingdom
                                                                                                 (2001/C 150/25)
                        (Case C-115/01)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
                        (2001/C 150/24)                                (England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 14 December 2000,
                                                                       which was received at the Court Registry on 15 March 2001,
                                                                       for a preliminary ruling in the case of KB against 1) National
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the            Health Service Pensions Agency, 2) Secretary of State for
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 March               Health, on the following question:
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr Richard Wainwrightas agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                       Does the exclusion of the female-to-male transsexual partner
                                                                       of a female member of the National Health Service Pension
                                                                       Scheme, which limits the material dependant’s benefit to her
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                            widower, constitute sex discrimination in contravention of
                                                                       Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117 (1)?
—    declare that, having failed to implement Articles 5(1) and
     6(1) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC (1) of 25 February
     1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrat-          (1) Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
     ive provisions relating to the application of Community               approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
     rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating             application of the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ
     in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications                L 45, 19.02.1975, p. 19).
     sectors into national law, the United Kingdom is in breach
     of Articles 3 and 13 of the said directive;
—    order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.