CELEX: C2001/150/22
Language: en
Date: 2001-05-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-109/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom), by order of that court of 3 October 2000, in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department against Hacene Akrich

C 150/12               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      19.5.2001
—     Infringement of Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now                  (2) if so, is the Member State of nationality entitled to refuse:
      Article 87 EC): The Court of First Instance failed to take
      into consideration the legal context: La Poste is required             a)     to revoke any preliminary obstacle to the entry of
      to offer any of Chronopost’s competitors who so requests                      the non-national spouse into that Member State (on
      access to its network on similar terms, which clearly                         the facts of this case an outstanding deportation
      indicates that the relationship between La Poste and                          order); and
      Chronopost does not entail a selective advantage for the
      benefit of Chronopost.
                                                                             b)     to accord the non-national spouse a right of entry
                                                                                    into its territory?
—     Breach of the obligation to state reasons: The Court of
      First Instance ought properly to have explained the
      reasoning which led it to conclude — solely because of
      the existence of a reserved sector — that La Poste’s
      manner of taking into account its full costs was unsatisfac-
      tory.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
                                                                        Förvaltningsdomstolen (Finnish Supreme Administrative
                                                                        Court) — by decision of that court of 8 March 2001 in
                                                                        the case of Paranova Oy, Esbo, v Läkemedelsverket
                                                                                           (Medical Products Agency)
                                                                                                   (Case C-113/01)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration
Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom), by order of that court                                           (2001/C 150/23)
of 3 October 2000, in the case of Secretary of State for
        the Home Department against Hacene Akrich
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by a decision of the Högsta För-
                        (Case C-109/01)                                 valtningsdomstolen of 8 March 2001, which was received at
                                                                        the Court Registry on 14 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                        in the case of Paranova Oy, Esbo, v Läkemedelsverket on the
                        (2001/C 150/22)                                 following questions:
                                                                        1.   Is it compatible with Articles 28 and 30 EC for a national
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       agency to decide that a marketing authorisation for
European Communities by an order of the Immigration Appeal                   a medicinal product imported as a parallel import
Tribunal (United Kingdom) of 3 October 2000, which was                       automatically comes to an end if the original marketing
received at the Court Registry on 7 March 2001, for a                        authorisation for the medicinal product has been with-
preliminary ruling in the case of Secretary of State for the                 drawn at the holder’s request for reasons unconnected
Home Department against Hacene Akrich, on the following                      with the effectiveness or the safety of the medicinal
question:                                                                    product and despite the fact that the product has a valid
                                                                             marketing authorisation in the Member State from which
                                                                             the parallel imports come?
Where a national of a Member State is married to a third
country national who does not qualify under national legis-             2.   If Community law imposes restrictions or conditions on
lation to enter or reside in that Member State, and moves to                 the right of a national agency to decide that a marketing
another Member State with the non-national spouse, intending                 authorisation for parallel imports comes to an end in the
to exercise Community law rights by working there for only a                 situation referred to in Question 1, what importance
limited period of time in order thereafter to claim the benefit              should be accorded to the facts that
of Community law rights when returning to the Member State
of nationality together with the non-national spouse:
                                                                             a)     the holder of the original marketing authorisation
                                                                                    has obtained a new marketing authorisation for a
(1) is the Member State of nationality entitled to regard the                       medicinal product designed to replace the original
      intention of the couple, when moving to the other                             medicinal product but that new product is not in
      Member State, to claim the benefit of Community law                           the same pharmaceutical form (tablets instead of
      rights when returning to the Member State of nationality,                     capsules) and the active ingredient is not exactly the
      notwithstanding the non-national spouse’s lack of qualifi-                    same (magnesium Omeprazole instead of Omepra-
      cation under national legislation, as a reliance on Com-                      zole); on the other hand, the national agency con-
      munity law in order to evade the application of national                      siders that the medicinal products are bioequivalent
      legislation; and                                                              and that they have the same therapeutic effect;