CELEX: C2002/323/26
Language: en
Date: 2002-12-21 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 2002 in Case C-99/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Gottfried Linhart v Hans Biffl (Approximation of laws — Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) — Directive 76/768/EEC relating to cosmetic products — Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising — National legislation laying down restrictions on advertising)

C 323/20                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.12.2002
Article 40 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July                1.    Dismisses the appeal;
1989 laying down general rules for the description and presentation
of wines and grape musts, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)            2.    Orders Aéroports de Paris to pay the costs.
No 3897/91 of 16 December 1991, is to be interpreted as not
prohibiting the use of a trade mark which contains a geographical           (1 ) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
reference and is intended for use in connection with the sale of wine
and is likely to give the false impression that the geographical
reference is protected, unless there is a real risk that use of such a
mark will mislead consumers and, as a result, alter their economic
behaviour. It is a matter for the national court to determine whether
or not that is the case.                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                                                                                                    of 24 October 2002
                                                                            in Case C-99/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Gottfried Linhart v Hans
                                                                                                           Biffl ( 1)
                                                                            (Approximation of laws — Articles 30 and 36 of the EC
                                                                            Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            — Directive 76/768/EEC relating to cosmetic products —
                                                                            Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising —
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                   National legislation laying down restrictions on advertising)
                                                                                                       (2002/C 323/26)
                         of 24 October 2002
                                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case C-82/01 P: Aéroports de Paris v Commission of
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                  the European Communities (1)
                                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Appeal — Competition — Air transport — Airport man-
agement — Abuse of dominant position — Discriminatory                       In Case C-99/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                 fees)                                      by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
                                                                            ruling in the proceedings pending before that court against
                                                                            Gottfried Linhart and Hans Biffl, on the interpretation of
                           (2002/C 323/25)                                  Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                            Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) and Council Directive 76/768/EEC
                                                                            of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the
                     (Language of the case: French)                         Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ 1976 L 262,
                                                                            p. 169), as amended by Council Directive 93/35/EEC of
                                                                            14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 151, p. 32), and Council Directive
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                            84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approxi-
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            mation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                            of the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ
                                                                            1984 L 250, p. 17), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                            J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,
In Case C-82/01 P, Aéroports de Paris (Agent: H. Calvet):                   V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of               Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 12 December                     has given a judgment on 24 October 2002, in which it has
2000 in Case T-128/98 Aéroports de Paris v Commission                       ruled:
[2000] ECR II-3929, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
the other parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the               1.    Article 6(3) of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July
European Communities (Agent: L. Pignataro, assisted by                            1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
B. Geneste) and Alpha Flight Services SAS (Agents: L. Marville                    relating to cosmetic products, as amended by Council Directive
and A. Denants), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                          93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, precludes national legislation
C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,                        which prohibits reference to expert medical opinions in the
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                       marketing of cosmetic products — in particular, the use of the
(Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,                      statement ‘dermatologically tested’ — if that reference does not
Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October 2002, in which                      include information relating to the contents and outcome of
it:                                                                               those assessments.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.12.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 323/21
2.    Article 6(3) of Directive 76/768 as amended by Directive 93/          Customs Code, read in conjunction with Council Regulation (EEC)
      35 precludes national legislation which authorises the use of         No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
      information as referred to in Question 1 only on condition that       Customs Code, should be interpreted as meaning that a customs debt
      prior authorisation is granted by the competent Minister.             arising by reason of an offence or irregularity committed in connection
                                                                            with a consignment placed under the external Community transit
                                                                            procedure can be recovered from the principal by the office of departure
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                                 even if it did not notify the principal before the end of the 11th
                                                                            month following the date of registration of the Community transit
                                                                            declaration that the consignment had not been presented at the office
                                                                            of destination and that the place of the offence or irregularity could
                                                                            not be established. The same applies if the office of departure did not
                                                                            follow an administrative procedure for the transmission of infor-
                                                                            mation, such as the early warning system, or if the failure to comply
                                                                            with the time-limit was due to error or negligence on the part of that
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      office.
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                      of 14 November 2002
in Case C-112/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Vestre Landsret): SPKR 4 nr. 3482 ApS v
Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattestyrelsen, Aktieselskab-
et af 11/9 1996, Arden Transport & Spedition ved Søren
           Lauritsen og Lene Lauritsen I/S (ATS) ( 1)
                                                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Regulations (EEC) Nos 2913/92 and 2454/93 — External
Community transit — Offence or irregularity — Recovery                                               (Fourth Chamber)
                of a customs debt — Conditions)
                          (2002/C 323/27)                                                          of 7 November 2002
                   (Language of the case: Danish)                                       in Case C-184/01 P: Peter Hirschfeldt (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      (Appeal — Officials — Internal competition — Cancellation
                   in the European Court Reports)                           — Transfer — Promotion — Article 8 of the Staff Regu-
                                                                                                            lations)
In Case C-112/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                            (2002/C 323/28)
EC by the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between SPKR 4
nr. 3482 ApS and Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattestyrelsen,                                   (Language of the case: French)
Aktieselskabet af 11/9 1996, Arden Transport & Spedition
ved Søren Lauritsen og Lene Lauritsen I/S (ATS), on the
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code                                        in the European Court Reports)
(OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), and Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ
1993 L 253, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                            In Case C-184/01 P, Peter Hirschfeldt (Agents: J.-N. Louis and
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,
V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),                V. Peere): Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of
                                                                            13 February 2001 in Case T-166/00 Hirschfeldt v EEA [2001]
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 November 2002, in
which it has ruled:                                                         ECR-SC I-A-41 and II-157, seeking to have that judgment set
                                                                            aside and the claims at first instance allowed, the other party
                                                                            to the proceedings being: European Environment Agency,
Article 379(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of                 represented by J.-L. Salazar and J. Rivière, acting as Agents,
2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of                assisted by D. Waelbroeck, avocat, with an address for service
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community              in Luxembourg, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: