You are on page 1of 1

10.12.

2005 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 315/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge- 2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
richtshof by order of that court of 21 July 2005 in Gintec
International Import-Export GmbH v Verband Sozialer (a) Is there an improper or misleading reference to a ‘claim
Wettbewerb e.V. of recovery’ within the meaning of Article 90(j) of Direc-
(Case C-374/05) tive 2001/83/EC where the advertiser reports the result
of a survey of third parties who lack professional knowl-
(2005/C 315/21) edge of the subject with a positive overall evaluation of
the medicinal product advertised, without attributing the
(Language of the case: German)
evaluation to individual fields of application?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof of 21 (b) Does the lack of an express prohibition on advertising
July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 12 October 2005, with a prize draw in Directive 2001/83/EC mean that
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Gintec this is basically permitted, or does Article 87(3) of
International Import-Export GmbH and Verband Sozialer Wett- Directive 2001/83/EC contain a catch-all provision on
bewerb e.V. on the following questions: which the prohibition of internet advertising with a
monthly low-value prize draw may be based?
1. Do the provisions of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the
Community code relating to medicinal products for human 3. Are the above questions to be answered analogously in
use (1), as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the Euro- respect of Council Directive 92/28/EEC of 31 March 1992
pean Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (2), on the advertising of medicinal products for human use (3)?
concerning a reference to statements of third parties who
lack professional knowledge of the subject and advertising
with a prize draw, set not only a minimum standard for the (1) OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.
prohibition on advertising of a medicinal product to the (2) OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34.
general public, but also a definitive maximum standard? (3) OJ 1992 L 113, p. 13.