CELEX: C2001/118/14
Language: en
Date: 2001-04-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-495/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by order of that court of 6 July 2000 in the case of Aziende Agricole Visentin and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA), the other parties to the proceedings being Ind. Caseificio Silvio Belladelli & Figli and Others

21.4.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/9
(1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of                If not:
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                (2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
     (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
     meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or
                                                                            1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
     judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate               (EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of
     from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of                  Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not
     quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?
                                                                            provide that derogations may be made from the periods
                                                                            prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of
If not:                                                                     individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
                                                                            in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those
                                                                            provisions?
(2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                (3) May Regulations No 3950/92 and 536/93 be interpreted
     (EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of                 as meaning that the individual reference quantity need
     Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not             not necessarily be notified separately to each producer,
     provide that derogations may be made from the periods                  but may be communicated in other ways such as the
     prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of                   publication of notices?
     individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
     in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those
     provisions?
                                                                       (1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12.
(1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
                                                                       Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by order of that
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                    court of 6 July 2000 in the case of Aziende Agricole
Amministrativo Regionale per il. Lazio by judgment of                  Visentin and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi
that court of 6 July 2000 in the case of Carlo Balestreri              nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA), the other parties to the
against Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato                proceedings being Ind. Caseificio Silvio Belladelli & Figli
Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry of the Treasury, the                                             and Others
Budget and Planning, the other party being Parmalat SpA
                                                                                               (Case C-495/00)
                        (Case C-484/00)
                                                                                               (2001/C 118/14)
                        (2001/C 118/13)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 European Communities by order of 6 July 2000 of the
European Communities by judgment of 6 July 2000 of the                 Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at           the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary              ruling in the case of Aziende Agricole Visentin and Others v
ruling in the case of Carlo Balestreri against Azienda di Stato        Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo
per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry        (AIMA), the other parties to the proceedings being Ind.
of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning, the other party being        Caseificio Silvio Belladelli & Figli and Others on the following
Parmalat SpA, on the following questions:                              questions:
(1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of                (1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December                 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                     P92 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
     (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as                  (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as
     meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or             meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or
     judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate               judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate
     from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of                  from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of
     quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?                    quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?
 ---pagebreak--- C 118/10              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       21.4.2001
If not:                                                                      Is the reference in Article 3a(1)(a) of the directive to
                                                                             Article 7(1) of the directive a lex specialis in relation to
(2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of                      Article 7(2) of the directive, with the result that a national
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December                      standard governing misleading statements which is poss-
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                      ibly more strict may be applied to all elements of the
     (EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of                  comparison?
     Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not
     provide that derogations may be made from the periods
     prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of                    Is Article 3a(1)(a) of the directive to be interpreted as
     individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies             meaning that the comparison of the price of a brand-
     in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those               name product with the price of a no-name product of
     provisions?                                                             equivalent quality is not permitted where the name of the
                                                                             manufacturer is not indicated, or do Article 3a(1)(c) and
(3) If retrospective adjustment is not possible, does the                    Article 3a(1)(g) of the directive preclude indication of the
     Community legislation permit the Member State to                        manufacturer? Is the image of a (brand-name) product a
     assume responsibility for paying the sums owed to the                   feature of the product/service within the meaning of
     Community without incurring liability to penalties?                     Article 3a(c) of the directive? Does it follow from a
                                                                             (possible) negative answer to this question that any (price)
                                                                             comparison of a brand-name product with a no-name
(1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12.
                                                                             product of equivalent quality is not permitted?
                                                                        2.   Is Article 7(2) of the directive to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                             that differences in the procurement of the product/service
                                                                             whose features are compared with features of the adver-
                                                                             tiser’s product/service must also be assessed solely on the
                                                                             basis of Article 3a of the directive?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberste Ge-
richtshof by order of 19 December 2000 in the case of
Pippig Augenoptik GmbH & Co KG v 1. Hartlauer                                If this question is answered in the affirmative:
Handelsgesellschaft mbH and 2. Estate of Franz Josef
                            Hartlauer
                                                                             Is Article 3a of the directive to be interpreted as meaning
                         (Case C-44/01)                                      that a (price) comparison is permitted only if the com-
                                                                             pared goods are procured through the same distribution
                        (2001/C 118/15)                                      channels and are thus offered by the advertiser and his
                                                                             competitor(s) in a comparable selection?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 19 December 2000 by the                3.   Is ‘comparison’ within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the
Oberste Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, which was                      directive to be construed as including the creation of the
received at the Court Registry on 2 February 2001, for a                     bases for comparison through a test purchase?
preliminary ruling in the case of Pippig Augenoptik GmbH &
Co. KG v 1. Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH and 2. Estate
of Franz Josef Hartlauer on the following questions:
                                                                             If this question is answered in the affirmative:
1.   Is Article 7(2) of Directive 97/55/EC (1)   of the European
     Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997
     amending Directive 84/450/EEC (2) concerning mislead-                   Is Article 3a of the directive to be interpreted as meaning
     ing advertising so as to include comparative advertising                that the deliberate initiation of a (price) comparison
     (‘the directive’) to be interpreted to the effect that                  which is favourable to the advertiser through a test
     ‘comparative advertising, as far as the comparison is                   purchase which is made before the beginning of the
     concerned’ means the statements regarding the product                   advertiser’s own offer and is arranged accordingly makes
     offered by the advertiser himself, the statements regarding             the comparison unlawful?
     the product offered by the competitor and the statements
     regarding the relationship between the two products (the
     result of the comparison)? Or is there a ‘comparison’              4.   Is a comparison discrediting within the meaning of
     within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the directive only                Article 3a(1)(e) of the directive if the advertiser selects the
     in so far as the statements are made regarding the                      goods purchased from the competitor in such a way that
     result of the comparison, with the consequence that                     a price difference is obtained which is greater than the
     misconceptions regarding other features of the compared                 average price difference and/or if such price comparisons
     goods/services may be assessed on the basis of a national               are repeatedly made with the result that the impression is
     standard governing misleading statements which is poss-                 created that the prices of the competitor(s) are generally
     ibly more strict?                                                       excessive?