Anda di halaman 1dari 2

C 211/6 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 22.7.

2000

acknowledgment of receipt, the Member State shall waive Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesar-
application of Article 589(1) of Regulation No 2454/93. beitsgericht, by order of that court of 22 March 2000
Compensatory interest thus comes within the scope of the in the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against Beata
customs debt. Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer

— Infringement of Article 221 of Council Regulation (EEC)


No 2913/92 (2) (Community Customs Code) in so far as (Case C-162/00)
the contested decision declared part of the application to
be inadmissible on the ground that the part in question (2000/C 211/10)
had become time-barred: the Commission misconstrues
Article 221 of the Community Customs Code and fails to
appreciate that the question whether a customs debt Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
has become time-barred is a matter coming within the European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
jurisdiction of national courts and not within the power of (Federal Labour Court), of 22 March 2000, received at the
the Commission. Court Registry on 2 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against Beata Pokrzeptow-
— Infringement of Article 239 of the Community Customs icz-Meyer on the following questions:
Code and of Article 905 of Regulation No 2454/93; in the
alternative, infringement of the principle of pro- 1. Does Article 37(1) of the Europe Agreement of
portionality; in the further alternative, infringement of the 16 December 1991 establishing an association between
obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC so the European Communities and their Member States and
far as Article 1(2) of the contested decision is concerned the Republic of Poland preclude the application — to
(rejection of the remainder of the application for remission Polish nationals — of national law according to which
of import duties): although the Commission is correct in posts for foreign-language assistants may be filled by
stating that the party concerned has extensive professional means of employment contracts of limited duration where-
experience in the agricultural products sector, the Com- as, for other teaching staff performing special duties,
mission errs in its view that it ought to have been obvious recourse to such contracts must be individually justified by
to that party that neither the authorisation for inward an objective reason?
processing nor the Community legislation published and
in force allows wheat to be used in place of maize for the
manufacture of glucose exported by that party. In finding 2. If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the
at the same time that the competent customs authorities affirmative:
had not raised a single objection against the transactions
of the party concerned, even though these had been carried Does Article 37(1) of the Europe Agreement also preclude
out for many years, the Commission imposed more the application of national law where the employment
stringent requirements on the party concerned than those contract of limited duration was concluded before the
which could have been imposed by the competent auth- Europe Agreement entered into force and the agreed
orities. Furthermore, the Commission fails to take account period comes to an end after its entry into force?
of the fact that it has also been known to take the view
that equivalence may be authorised between two products
which do not satisfy the equivalence criteria.

The Commission has expressly determined that there was


no question of manipulation on the part of the party
concerned and that the financial advantage is attributable
to price fluctuations under which the procedure followed
by the party concerned might just as easily have resulted
in a financial loss. That procedure resulted in a total
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht,
customs debt of NLG 17 491 244,45, while the intended
Cologne, Federal Republic of Germany, by order of that
surplus (profit) during the period in question came to
court of 14 April 2000 in the case of Ferring Arzneimittel
NLG 710 700. Under those circumstances and those
GmbH v Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH
already pointed out, it would be disproportionate not to
proceed with remission of the customs debt in so far as
that debt is higher than the advantage obtained by the (Case C-172/00)
party concerned.
(2000/C 211/11)
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2913/92, as last amended by Regulation (EEC) Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
No 1662/99 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1). European Communities by an order of the Landgericht
(2) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1. (Regional Court), Cologne, of 14 April 2000, which was
received at the Court Registry on 10 May 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Ferring Arzneimittel GmbH v
Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH, on the following questions:
22.7.2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 211/7

1. Do Articles 28 EC and 30 EC preclude national law which represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,
prohibits the marketing of medicinal product X, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
— for which there existed hitherto in Member State A an Kirchberg.
implied licence which has now expired because the
licence holder has surrendered it,
The Commission claims that the Court should:

— which for several years has been brought as a parallel


import from Member State B to Member State A and 1. declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
has been placed on the market there with reference to administrative provisions required to comply with
the abovementioned implied licence,
— Council Directive 96/24/EC (1) of 29 April 1996
— which the manufacturer and licence holder is replacing amending Directive 79/373/EEC on the marketing of
with a new preparation Y [which it] is placing on compound feedingstuffs and
the market in Member State A on the basis of an
independent licence, and — Council Directive 96/25/EC (2) of 29 April 1996 on
the circulation of feed materials, amending Directives
— [where preparation Y] differs from preparation X only 70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC, 82/471/EEC and 93/74/EEC
in respect of modified excipients, so that those excipi- and repealing Directive 77/101/EEC,
ents lead to improved temperature stability and thus
make storage in the refrigerator unnecessary? the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the Treaty and those directives;
2. Does it affect the judgment if there was available to the
holder of the licence which has now expired a lawful
2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
means of surrendering that licence in such a way that the
marketability of the medicinal product was preserved for a
certain (transitional) period?
Pleas in law and main arguments
If yes, according to which criteria must the previous
holder, when taking a decision on his action, take into
consideration the European free movement of goods? In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
3. Does it affect the judgment if medicinal product Y in the each Member State to which they are addressed.
new formulation is placed on the market only in Member
State A or if it is also found on the market in other Member
States? Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
4. Does it affect the judgment if, when the two formulations or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
exist side by side simultaneously in Member State A, there Community.
is a danger of incorrect storage of medicinal product X?

It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt


measures to comply with the abovementioned directives.

The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic


has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
ation of the directives at issue into Greek law.
Action brought on 11 May 2000 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-176/00)

(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 33.


(2000/C 211/12) (2) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 35.

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before


the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 May
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,