CELEX: C2001/028/04
Language: en
Date: 2001-01-27 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 7 November 2000 in Case C-371/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court) of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales): The Queen v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Definition of the boundaries of sites eligible for designation as special areas of conservation — Discretion of the Member States — Economic and social considerations — Severn Estuary)

C 28/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         27.1.2001
P. Steinmetz, assisted by J. Welter) v European Parliament                 (Federal Court of Justice), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in
(Agents: originally represented by C. Pennera, and A. Baas, and            the proceedings pending before that court between Schutzver-
subsequently by C. Pennera and J. Sant’Anna) and Council of                band gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft eV and Warsteiner
the European Union (Agents: M.C. Giorgi and F. Anton),                     Brauerei Haus Cramer GmbH & Co. KG — on the interpret-
supported by Kingdom of Spain, (Agent: M. López-Monı́s                    ation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July
Gallego, Abogado del Estado) by Kingdom of the Netherlands                 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and
(Agent: M.A. Fierstra) by United Kingdom of Great Britain and              designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs
Northern Ireland (Agents: J.E. Collins and D. Anderson, and by             (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́-
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Caeiro                  guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
and B. Mongin, — application for a annulment of Directive                  and V. Skouris, Presidents of Chambers, D.A.O. Edward,
98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of                   J.-R Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)
16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of               and F. Macken, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than                   H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77,                a judgment on 7 November 2000, in which it has ruled:
p. 36) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P.              Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,                protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von                   agricultural products and foodstuffs does not preclude the application
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                 of national legislation which prohibits the potentially misleading use
judgment on 7 November 2000, in which it:                                  of a geographical indication of source in the case of which there is no
                                                                           link between the characteristics of the product and its geographical
1.    Dismisses the application;                                           provenance.
2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs;
                                                                           (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
      the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and
      the Commission of the European Communities to bear their
      own costs.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                            of 7 November 2000
                       of 7 November 2000
                                                                           in Case C-371/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-312/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  the Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional Court) of the
the Bundesgerichtshof): Schutzverband gegen Unwesen                        High Court of Justice of England and Wales): The Queen
in der Wirtschaft eV v Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer                     v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and
                        GmbH & Co. KG (1)                                                            the Regions (1)
(Protection of geographical indications and designations of                (Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats
origin — Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Scope —                             and of wild fauna and flora — Definition of the boundaries
Directive 79/112/EEC — National rules prohibiting the                      of sites eligible for designation as special areas of conser-
potentially misleading use of ‘simple’ geographical indi-                  vation — Discretion of the Member States — Economic and
                         cations of source)                                            social considerations — Severn Estuary)
                          (2001/C 28/03)
                                                                                                     (2001/C 28/04)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                               (Language of the case: English)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-371/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
In Case C-312/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Queen’s Bench
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesgerichtshof              Division (Divisional Court) of the High Court of Justice of
 ---pagebreak--- 27.1.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 28/3
England and Wales, (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling             of England and Wales (United Kingdom) for a preliminary
in the proceedings pending before that court between The                  ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Queen and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport               The Queen and Secretary of State for the Home Department,
and the Regions, ex parte First Corporate Shipping Ltd,                   ex parte: Nana Yaa Konadu Yiadom — on the interpretation
interveners: World Wide Fund for Nature UK (WWF) and                      of Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of
Avon Wildlife Trust — on the interpretation of Articles 2(3)              25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures
and 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on                 concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals
the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and                which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security
flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — the Court, composed of:                     or public health (OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964,
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),             p. 117) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
M. Wathelet, V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O.                  M. Wathelet, President of the First Chamber, acting as President
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen,            of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón (Rapporte-
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal                  ur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Adminis-
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                 trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November
7 November 2000, in which it has ruled:                                   2000, in which it has ruled:
On a proper construction of Article 4(1) of Council Directive
92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora, a Member State may not take account
of economic, social and cultural requirements or regional and local
characteristics, as mentioned in Article 2(3) of that directive, when     Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February
selecting and defining the boundaries of the sites to be proposed to      1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the
the Commission as eligible for identification as sites of Community       movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on
importance.                                                               grounds of public policy, public security or public health must be
                                                                          interpreted as meaning that a decision adopted by the authorities of
                                                                          a Member State refusing a Community national, not in possession of
                                                                          a residence permit, leave to enter its territory cannot be classified as a
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                               ‘decision concerning entry’ within the meaning of Article 8 thereof in
                                                                          a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings where the person
                                                                          concerned was temporarily admitted to the territory of that Member
                                                                          State, pending a decision following the enquiries required for the
                                                                          investigation of her case, and therefore resided for almost seven
                                                                          months in that territory before that decision was notified to her, since
                                                                          such a national must be entitled to the procedural safeguards referred
                                                                          to in Article 9 of Directive 64/221.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                          The time which elapsed after the competent authority’s decision as a
                       of 9 November 2000                                 result, first, of the suspensory effect of legal proceedings and, second,
                                                                          of the grant of permission to take up employment pending the
                                                                          determination of those proceedings, cannot have any bearing on the
in Case C-357/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 classification of that decision under Directive 64/221.
the Court of Appeal of England and Wales): The Queen v
Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
                   Nana Yaa Konadu Yiadom (1)
(Freedom of movement of persons — Derogations —
Decisions regarding foreign nationals — Temporary admis-
                                                                          (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
sion — Judicial safeguards — Legal remedies — Articles 8
                  and 9 of Directive 64/221/EEC)
                           (2001/C 28/05)
                    (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-357/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Court of Appeal