CELEX: C2001/045/12
Language: en
Date: 2001-02-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-417/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwaltungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt by order of that court of 7 September 2000 in the case of Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch e.G. against Amt für Landwirtschaft und Flurneuordnung Anhalt

C 45/6                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.2.2001
Application brought on 14 December 2000 by Cotecna                      2.    Do the so-called ‘simple’ cases of difference in the second
Inspection SA for leave to attach assets held by the                          sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 9(2) of the
         Commission of the European Communities                               regulation presuppose the making of a ‘false declaration’
                                                                              in the application itself, or is it simply a question of
                        (Case C-1/00 SA)                                      comparing the information given in the application with
                                                                              the result of the on-the-spot inspection?
                          (2001/C 45/11)
                                                                        (1) OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36.
An application for leave to attach assets held by the Com-
mission of the European Communities was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 December
2000 by Cotecna Inspection S.A., represented by Jacques
H.J. Bourgeois, of the Brussels Bar, of Messrs Akin, Gump,
Strauss, Hauer & Fedd, with an address for service in Luxem-            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
bourg at the Chambers of Messrs Arendt & Medernach, 8-10                KöIn by order of 10 November 2000 in the case of Aventis
Rue Mathias Hardt.                                                      Pharma Deutschland GmbH v Kohlpharma GmbH and
                                                                                         MTK Pharma Vertriebs GmbH
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (Case C-433/00)
—     grant the applicant leave to attach assets held by the                                       (2001/C 45/13)
      Commission amounting to USD 2 265 550,63 together
      with interest at the legal rate in force in Djibouti from         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      28 January 2000, being the date of the arbitration award,         European Communities by order of 10 November 2000 by
      and USD 66 000,                                                   the Landgericht KöIn (Regional Court, Cologne) which was
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 23 November 2000, for a
with a view to the enforcement of an arbitration award made             preliminary ruling in the case of Aventis Pharma Deutschland
against the State of Djibouti which has become enforceable              GmbH v Kohlpharma GmbH and MTK Pharma Vertriebs
pursuant to an order made the Tribunal de Première Instance,            GmbH on the following questions:
Brussels.
                                                                        1.    Do the provisions governing the central authorisation of
                                                                              medicinal products in the European Union — in particu-
                                                                              lar those of Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 (1) — preclude
                                                                              the legal possibility of ‘bundling’ (that is to say, the joining
                                                                              together of several packages, each bearing the necessary
                                                                              labelling, in order to form a new retail unit) of packages
                                                                              of medicinal products following importation into one
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwal-                         Member State from another Member State, in such a way
tungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt by order of that                       that ‘repackaging’ of medicinal products (that is to say,
court of 7 September 2000 in the case of Agrargenossen-                       the production of new external packaging to which
schaft Pretzsch e.G. against Amt für Landwirtschaft und                       the importer affixes the foreign trademark without the
                    Flurneuordnung Anhalt                                     authorisation of the trademark holder) is ‘necessary’
                                                                              within the meaning of the decision of the European Court
                         (Case C-417/00)                                      of Justice in Case C-232/94 MPA Pharma v Rhône-
                                                                              Poulenc Pharma (2) and the trademark holder for that
                                                                              reason cannot prohibit such repackaging?
                          (2001/C 45/12)
                                                                        2.    In the event that Question 1 should be answered in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        negative:
European Communities by order of the Oberverwaltungsge-
richt des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (Higher Administrative Court                  Do the rules on the free movement of goods within the
for the Land Sachsen-Anhalt) of 7 September 2000, received                    Common Market or other rules of Community law stand
at the Court Registry on 13 November 2000, for a preliminary                  in the way of a prohibition which, in cases of the kind
ruling in the case of Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch e.G. v                     referred to in Question 1, is directed against ‘repackaging’
Amt für Landwirtschaft und Flurneuordnung Anhalt on the                       on the ground, derived from national trademark law, that
following questions:                                                          the possibility of creating a bundle package, which,
                                                                              moreover, exists de facto and de jure, constitutes a less
                                                                              intrusive interference with the rights of the trademark
1.    On a proper interpretation of the third subparagraph of
                                                                              holder?
      Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92, (1) does
      ‘false declaration’ refer to a culpable positive act in the
      context of an application for aid, so that failure to report      (1) OJ 1993 L 214 of 24.8.1993, p. 1.
      to the granting authority changes which are relevant to           (2) [1996] ECR I-3671.
      the application but do not occur until afterwards is not
      penalised?