CELEX: C2001/348/16
Language: en
Date: 2001-12-08 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 October 2001 in Case C-460/00: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 96/48/EC — Interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system)

8.12.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 348/9
The interpretation given by the Court of Justice in Case 40/76             Article 68(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
Kermaschek continues to hold good in relation to Article 2(1), in          1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed
conjunction with Articles 67 to 71a, of Regulation (EEC)                   persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families
No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of            moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council
social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons      Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, read in
and to members of their families moving within the Community, in           conjunction with Article 1(f)(i) thereof, precludes national rules, such
the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC)                 as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which receipt of a
No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation             higher rate of unemployment benefit is conditional on the unemployed
(EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999.                                       person living together with the members of his family in the territory
                                                                           of the competent Member State.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Third Chamber)
                                                                                                      (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 16 October 2001
                                                                                                   of 25 October 2001
in Case C-212/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal du travail de Mons): Salvatore Stallone v
             Office national de l’emploi (ONEM) (1)                        in Case C-460/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                               ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 — Unemployment benefit — Condition of                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
  living together with the dependent members of the family)                Directive 96/48/EC — Interoperability of the trans-Euro-
                                                                                              pean high-speed rail system)
                           (2001/C 348/15)
                                                                                                      (2001/C 348/16)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                               in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-212/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Tribunal du travail de Mons (Labour Court, Mons)
(Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending              In Case C-460/00: Commission of the European Communities
before that court between Salvatore Stallone and Office                    (Agents: M. Wolfcarius and M. Patakia) v Hellenic Republic
national de l’emploi (ONEM) — on the interpretation of                     (Agents: N. Dafniou and S. Chala) — application for a
Articles 1(f)(i) and 68(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)                     declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social                    administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                     Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interop-
persons and to members of their families moving within the                 erability of the trans-European high-speed rail system (OJ
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation                    1996 L 235, p. 6), or, alternatively, by not communicating
(EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1)                     them to the Commission, within the prescribed period, the
— the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann                       Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
(Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Third Chamber,               EC Treaty — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La
J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano,             Pergola, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,                   (Rapporteur) S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 October 2001,                L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
in which it has ruled:                                                     a judgment on 25 October 2001, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 348/10               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8.12.2001
1.   Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period,            (c)    Are questions 1, 1(a) and 1(b) to be assessed
     the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                differently in the light of Articles 28 and 30 EC if
     comply fully with Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996                    the imported medicines in question are medicines
     on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail                   authorised in the importing State, which a pharmacy
     system, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations              in an EU Member State previously obtained from
     under that Directive.                                                           wholesalers in the importing State?
2.   Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                      2.   Is it compatible with Articles 28 and 30 EC for a national
                                                                              prohibition on advertising medicines by mail order,
                                                                              prescription medicines and medicines available only
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                     through pharmacies that are authorised in the State of
                                                                              origin but not the importing State to be interpreted so
                                                                              broadly that the Internet presentation of a pharmacy of
                                                                              an EU Member State, which in addition to presentation
                                                                              of its business describes individual medicines with their
                                                                              product name, prescription status, package size and price
                                                                              and at the same time offers the possibility of ordering
                                                                              those medicines by means of an on-line order form, is
                                                                              classified as prohibited advertising, with the result that
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht                         cross-border orders of medicines by internet including
Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 10 August                         delivery of those orders is at the very least made
2001 in the case of Deutscher Apothekerverband e.V.                           substantially more difficult?
        against DocMorris NV and Jacques Waterval
                                                                              (a)    Having regard to Article 1(3) of Directive
                         (Case C-322/01)                                             2000/31/EC (1) of 8 June 2000 (‘Directive on elec-
                                                                                     tronic commerce’), do Articles 28 and 30 EC require
                                                                                     the Internet presentation of a pharmacy of an EU
                         (2001/C 348/17)                                             Member State, as described above, or parts of that
                                                                                     presentation, to be excluded from the definition of
                                                                                     advertising to the general public for the purposes
                                                                                     of Articles 1(3) and 3(1) of Council Directive
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                               1992/28/EEC (2), of 31 March 1992 on the advertis-
European Communities by order of the Landgericht Frankfurt                           ing of medicinal products for human use, in order
am Main (Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main) of 10 August                             to make it practically possible to offer certain
2001, received at the Court Registry on 21 August 2001, for                          information society services?
a preliminary ruling in the case of Deutscher Apothekerver-
band e.V. v Doc Morris NV and Jacques Waterval on the                         (b) Can any restriction of the definition of advertising
following questions:                                                                 that may be required under Articles 28 and 30 EC
                                                                                     be justified by the consideration that on-line order
1.   Are the principles of the free movement of goods under                          forms containing only the minimum information
     Article 28 et seq. of the Treaty infringed by national                          necessary for placing an order, and/or other parts of
     legislation which prohibits human medicines, which are                          the Internet presentation of a pharmacy of an EU
     required to be handled only through pharmacies, from                            Member State, are comparable with trade catalogues
     being imported commercially from other EU Member                                and/or price lists within the meaning of Article 1(4)
     States in mail-order business through authorised phar-                          of Directive 92/28/EEC?
     macies on the basis of individual orders placed by
     consumers over the Internet?                                        3.   If some aspects of the Internet presentation of a pharmacy
                                                                              of an EU Member State infringe provisions concerning
     (a)   Does such a national prohibition constitute a                      the advertising of medicines, is it to be inferred from
           measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative                 Articles 28 and 30 EC that cross-border trade in medicines
           restriction on imports within the meaning of                       which does take place with the help of such a presentation
           Article 28 of the EC Treaty?                                       must be regarded as legally permissible despite the
                                                                              prohibited advertising, in order more effectively to
                                                                              implement the principle of the free movement of goods
     (b) If it does, is Article 30 EC to be interpreted as                    across borders?
           meaning that a national prohibition designed to
           protect the health and life of humans is justified if,
           before prescription medicines are sent out, a doctor’s
           original prescription must have been produced to              (1) OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1.
           the pharmacy sending out the medicines? In such a             (2) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992, p. 13.
           situation, what requirements should be placed on
           that pharmacy as regards control of the order,
           packaging and receipt?