CELEX: C2000/302/39
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-318/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 28 July 2000, in the case of Bacardi-Martini S.A.S. and Cellier des Dauphins against Newcastle United Football Company Limited

C 302/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.10.2000
2.    Is it of any significance in that connection whether the                 deadline laid down in Directive 80/778/EEC, especially
      lessor makes available to the lessee both the building and               when that Directive makes clear the importance of strict
      the land on which it is erected, or merely the building,                 compliance with these parameters. While the three-tier
      which he has erected on the lessee’s land?                               approach to dealing with noncompliant group water
                                                                               supplies adopted by the Irish authorities offers the
                                                                               prospect of improved compliance in the years to come, it
(1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                               comes very late by reference to the compliance deadline,
                                                                               is insufficiently grounded in national legislation, and is
                                                                               very far from being implemented at the level of individual
                                                                               local authorities and individual non-compliant water
                                                                               supplies.
                                                                         —     The second major concern of the Commission is that,
                                                                               notwithstanding the new legislation, Ireland’s transpo-
                                                                               sition of Directive 80/778/EEC still fails to properly
Action brought on 22 August 2000 by the Commission                             reflect the binding character of the parameters of the
        of the European Communities against Ireland                            Directive in relation to group water supplies.
                         (Case C-316/00)
                                                                         (1) OJ L 229 of 30.8.1980, p. 11.
                         (2000/C 302/38)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 22 August 2000 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Richard Wainright, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as agent,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the
Commission, Centre Wagner.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                              Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, by
                                                                         order of that court of 28 July 2000, in the case of Bacardi-
                                                                         Martini S.A.S. and Cellier des Dauphins against Newcastle
—     declare that Ireland is in breach of its obligations under
                                                                                       United Football Company Limited
      Articles 7(6) and 19 of Directive 80/778/EEC (1) in failing
      to ensure compliance with microbiological parameters 57
      (total coliforms) and 58 (faecal coliforms) of Annex I of                                   (Case C-318/00)
      the Directive 80/778/EEC in respect of certain public
      water supplies and certain group water supplies identified
      in official drinking water reports and in correspondence                                    (2000/C 302/39)
      concerning Ballycroy, and is further in breach of its
      obligations under Articles 7(6), 18 and 19 of Directive
      80/778/EEC in failing, in its implementing legislation, to         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      reflect the binding character of the requirements of               European Communities by an order of the High Court of
      Annex I of the Directive in relation to group water                Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division of 28 July
      supplies, and is also in breach of its obligations under the       2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 14 August
      Treaty;                                                            2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bacardi-Martini
                                                                         S.A.S. and Cellier des Dauphins against Newcastle United
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                    Football Company Limited, on the following question:
                                                                         1.    Are Articles L. 17 to L.21 of the Code des débits de
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                boissons (the so-called ‘Loi Evin’ provisions), Article 8 of
                                                                               Decree no 92-280 of 27 March 1992 and the provisions
                                                                               of the Code de Bonne Conduite of 28 March 1995,
Two major concerns have led the Commission to make this                        contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now Article 49
application to the Court against Ireland:                                      EC) insofar as they prevent or restrict (a) the advertising
                                                                               of alcoholic drinks at sporting events taking place in
—     The first concern relates to the prevalence and persistence              Member States other than France when the events are to
      of problems of non-compliance with microbiological                       be televised in France and (b) the broadcasting in France
      parameters in Irish drinking water supplies, notably                     of sporting events taking place in other Member States at
      group water supplies, fifteen years after the compliance                 which there is advertising of alcoholic beverages?
 ---pagebreak--- 21.10.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 302/21
2.    If not, is the manner in which these provisions are                sation — United Civil Chambers) of 9 June 2000, which was
      interpreted and applied in practice by the Conseil Supé-           received at the Court Registry on 11 September 2000, for a
      rieur de l’Audiovisuel contrary to Article 59 of the EC            preliminary ruling in the case of Fonderie Officine Meecaniche
      Treaty (now Article 49 EC) insofar as they prevent or              Tacconi SpA against HWS Heinrich Wagner Sinto Maschinen-
      restrict (a) the advertising of alcoholic drinks at sporting       fabrik GmbH on the following question:
      events taking place in Member States other than France
      when the events are to be televised in France and (b) the
      broadcasting in France of sporting events taking place in          Does an action against a defendant for pre-contractual liability
      other Member States at which there is advertising of               fall within the scope of matters relating to delict or quasi-delict
      alcoholic beverages?                                               (Article 5(3)? If not, does it fall within the scope of matters
                                                                         relating to a contract (Article 5(1) (1)? If it does, what is ‘the
                                                                         obligation in question’? Otherwise, is the general criterion of
                                                                         ‘domicile of the defendant’ the only criterion applicable?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                   (1) Article 5(1) and (3) of the Brussels Convention 1968 on Jurisdic-
                                                                             tion and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of
                                                                             Matters (consolidated version) (OJ 1998 C 27, p. 1).
23 August 2000 in the appeal concerning Merkurbau-
Grundstücksverwertungs GmbH & Co KG, Manfred
Wander, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg
and Grundverkehrslandeskommission des Landes Salz-
                                burg
                         (Case C-319/00)
                         (2000/C 302/40)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-525/99 (1)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-                                          (2000/C 302/42)
tungssenat Salzburg of 23 August 2000, received at the Court
Registry on 28 August 2000, for a preliminary ruling in
the appeal concerning Merkurbau-Grundstücksverwertungs                   By order of 3 April 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
GmbH & Co KG, Manfred Wander, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter                  of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
des Landes Salzburg and Grundverkehrslandeskommission des                the register of Case C-525/99 (Reference for a preliminary
Landes Salzburg on the following question:                               ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg):
                                                                         Neubau GmbH and Herbert Bogensberger.
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12 to
14 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land                  (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
Transfer law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.
No. 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply
with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?
                                                                                 Removal from the register of Case C-38/00 (1)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 302/43)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
di Cassazione — Sezione Unite Civile by order of that                    By order of 10 May 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
court of 9 June 2000 in the case of Fonderie Officine                    of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Meccaniche Tacconi SpA against HWS Heinrich Wagner                       the register of Case C-38/00 (Reference for a preliminary
                  Sinto Maschinenfabrik GmbH                             ruling from the Deputy Traffic Commissioner, North Western
                                                                         Traffic Area): Public enquiry concerning Aaron Theophilus
                         (Case C-334/00)                                 Joseph, trading under the name of Woodcroft Haulage.
                         (2000/C 302/41)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di
Cassazione — Sezione Unite Civile (Supreme Court of Cas-