You are on page 1of 1

C 28/10 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27.1.

2001

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
di Genova by order of that court of 16 October 2000 in
(Fifth Chamber) the case of Radiosistemi Srl against Prefetto di Genova

of 16 November 2000 (Case C-388/00)

in Case C-280/98 P: Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG v (2001/C 28/18)
Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Determination of the European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace
amount — Statement of reasons — Mitigating circum- (District Court), Genoa, of 23 October 2000, received at the
stances) Court Registry on 16 October 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Radiosistemi Srl against Prefetto di Genova on
(2001/C 28/17) the following questions:

(1) Does Community law, in the light also of its fundamental
(Language of the case: German) principles for which there is no primary textual source,
preclude legislation and/or national administrative prac-
tice which — in the context of a system where matters
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published concerning conformity assessment procedures for the
in the European Court Reports) purposes of placing radio equipment on the market and
putting such equipment into service have been delegated
In Case C-280/98 P: Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG, to the administrative authorities, to be decided merely at
established in Mayen, Germany, represented by T. Jestaedt, of their discretion — precludes economic operators from
the Brussels Bar and V. von Bomhard, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg, importing, marketing or holding in stock, with a view to
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of selling, radio equipment that has not undergone national
P. Dupont, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, appeal against the type-approval, and which does not admit other forms of
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European evidence, equally reliable but less burdensome to obtain,
Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of to prove that such equipment is in conformity with
14 May 1998 in Case T-317/94 Weig v Commission [1998] requirements concerning the proper use of the radio
ECR II-1235, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other frequencies authorised under national law?
party to the proceedings being, Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: R. Lyal assisted by D. Schroeder) — the (2) Does Directive 1999/5/EC (1) of the European Parliament
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President and of the Council of 9 March 1999 confer on individuals
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, rights upon which they may rely before the national
P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; courts, where the Directive itself has not been formally
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November transposed into national law and the deadline for such
2000, in which it: transposition has already expired? If that question is
answered in the affirmative, is it compatible with
1. Annuls paragraph 3 of the operative part of the judgment of Article 7(2)) of Directive 1999/5/EC to maintain in force
the Court of First Instance of 14 May 1998 in Case T-317/94 legislation and/or administrative practice which, after
Weig v Commission; 8 April 2000, prohibits the marketing and/or the putting
into service of radio equipment which does not bear
2. Fixes at EUR 1 900 000 the amount of the fine to be imposed the national type-approval stamp, where it has been
on Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG by Article 3 of Commission confirmed that such equipment makes efficient and
Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding proper use of the radio frequencies authorised under
under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 — Car- national law, or where it is easy to verify that this is the
tonboard); case?

3. Dismisses the remainder of the appeal; (3) On a proper construction of Article 1 of Decision
No 3052/95/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the
4. Orders Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs Council of 13 December 1995, how is the term ‘the
and to pay two-thirds of the costs of the Commission of the measure’ to be interpreted and does that term cover the
European Community before the Court of Justice; situation where the administrative authorities, having
seized a particular model or a particular type of product
5. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear which is lawfully marketed in another Member State,
one-third of its own costs before the Court of Justice. continue to withhold that model or product after it has
been ascertained by the public authorities responsible for
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998. technical checks that the good in question is in conform-
ity with both national and Community legislation, that is
to say, after the evidential purposes justifying the initial
seizure have been served?