CELEX: C2003/031/17
Language: en
Date: 2003-02-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-444/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Monomeles Protodikio Athinon by order of that Court of 11 July 2002 in the case of Fixtures Marketing Limited against Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosphairou AE

C 31/12                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          8.2.2003
       duces into the Community legal order, be construed as               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Monomeles
       meaning that the terms ‘biocidal products’ and ‘low-risk            Protodikio Athinon by order of that Court of 11 July
       biocidal product’ refer solely to products whose biocidal           2002 in the case of Fixtures Marketing Limited against
       function depends on active substances added to those                    Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosphairou AE
       products by chemical or biological means through pro-
       cesses expressly designed to add such substances in order                                    (Case C-444/02)
       to confer on those products a biocidal function?
                                                                                                     (2003/C 31/17)
2.     Must Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 98/8/EC, in the light of
       the general rules which that directive introduces into the
       Community legal order, be construed as meaning that the             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       term ‘basic substance’ refers to substances which are not           European Communities by order of the Monomeles Protodikio
       added to a product in order to enable it to perform an              Athinon (Single-Judge Court of First Instance, Athens) of
       intended biocidal function but such a biocidal function is          11 July 2002, received at the Court Registry on 9 December
       performed in addition to the function normally perfor-              2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fixtures Marketing
       med by that product during its use (as an example: liquid           Limited against Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosphai-
       for a dishwasher which, by virtue of the addition of a              rou AE (Football-match-results-forecasting Undertaking) on
       substance designed to improve its detergent function,               the interpretation of Article 7 of Directive 96/9/EC and the sui
       may also have a bactericidal function)?                             generis right thereunder in connection with the following
                                                                           issues:
3.     May a piece of red cedar wood, simply by virtue of the              1.    the concept of databases and the scope of Directive 96/
       fact that it is marketed as being ‘anti-moth’, be classifiable            9/EC ( 1) and in particular Article 7 thereof (sui generis
       as a ‘biocidal product’, as a ‘low-risk biocidal product’ or              right).
       as a ‘basic substance’ within the meaning of Directive 98/
       8/EC, bearing in mind that: (a) the wood in question has            2.    Further to determination of the scope of the directive,
       in no way been treated chemically or biologically; (b) the                whether the lists of football fixtures enjoy protection as
       substance on which the effects attributed to the wood                     databases over which there is a sui generis right in favour
       may depend is naturally present in the product; (c) the                   of the maker and with what consequences.
       product is substantially marketed as found in its natural
       state?                                                              3.    How exactly the database right is infringed and whether
                                                                                 it is protected in regard to rearrangement of the contents
                                                                                 of the database.
4.     Must Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 98/8/EC be construed as
       meaning that it is only if a ‘basic substance’ is included
       on the list referred to in Annex IB that that substance             (1 ) OJ L 77 of 27.3.1996, p. 20.
       may be exempted from the authorisation and registration
       provided for the marketing in the Member States of
       products covered by Article 2, with such inclusion on the
       list referred to in Annex IB thus acquiring constitutive
       effectiveness for all purposes?
                                                                           Appeal brought on 9 December 2002 by Glaverbel against
5.     Must Article 4 of Directive 98/8/EC, by reference to                the judgment delivered on 9 October 2002 by the Second
       Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, be construed as meaning that              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
       a product such as that described in Question 3, placed              Communities in case T-36/01 (1) between Glaverbel and
       lawfully on the market in a Member State without any                the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
       need for authorisation or registration in that Member                              (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM)
       State, may be made subject to authorisation or regis-
       tration in another Member State in which it is sub-                                         (Case C-445/02 P)
       sequently marketed by reason of the fact that the product
       in question is not included on the list referred to in
       Annex IB to Directive 98/8/EC?                                                                (2003/C 31/18)
                                                                           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 October 2002
( 1) Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council       by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
     of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products       European Communities in case T-36/01 between Glaverbel
     on the market (OJ L 123 of 24.04.1998, p. 1).                         and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                                                                           (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM), was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 December
                                                                           2002 by Glaverbel, represented by Susanne Möbus, Attorney
                                                                           at Law, with an address for service in Luxembourg.