You are on page 1of 1

26.4.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/17

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts- it in the fishing years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993,
hofes by order of that Court of 17 December 2002 in the 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997;
appeal proceedings brought by Pharmacia & Upjohn S.p.A

— by having failed to ensure compliance with the


(Case C-31/03)
Community rules on conservation through adequate
monitoring of fishing activities and appropriate
(2003/C 101/28) inspections of the fishing fleet and of landings and
recording of catches for the fishing years 1990,
1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997;

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the


European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshofes — by not having temporarily prohibited fishing from
(Federal Court) of 17 December 2002, received at the Court vessels flying the Spanish flag or registered in
Registry on 27 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the Spanish territory when the quotas allocated to
appeal proceedings brought by Pharmacia & Upjohn S.p.A on Spain were deemed to be exhausted in the fishing
the interpretation of Article 19(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995,
No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a 1996 and 1997 and by having finally prohibited it
supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products when the quotas had already been exceeded; and
(OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1; hereinafter ‘the Protection Certificate
Regulation’):
— by having failed to take legal or administrative action
against the master or other person responsible for
Is the grant of a supplementary protection certificate in a
overfishing in the fishing years 1990, 1991, 1992,
Member State of the Community on the basis of a medicinal 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997;
product for human beings authorised in that Member State
precluded by an authorisation to place the same product on
the market as a veterinary medicinal product granted in the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
another Member State of the Community before the date
under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 (1),
specified in Article 19(1) of the Protection Certificate Regu-
Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 (2), Article 1
lation, or is the sole determining factor the date on which the and Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/
product was authorised in the Community as a medicinal
87 ( 3) and Article 2, Article 21(1) and (2) and Article 31
product for human beings?
of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 ( 4);

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Action brought on 4 February 2003 by the Commission


of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Spain Pleas in law and main arguments

(Case C-42/03) — Infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/


83, Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92: those
(2003/C 101/29) provisions impose a general obligation on Member
States to determine, in accordance with the applicable
Community law, detailed rules for the use of the fishing
quotas allocated to them. The data on overfishing which
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before are cited in the reasoned opinions sent to Spain give an
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 Febru- overall picture of how often over a period of time and
ary 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, how significantly the quotas were exceeded ( 5). They show
represented by T. van Rijn, Legal Adviser, and S. Pardo that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligation
Quintillán, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in to put in place, in accordance with the applicable
Luxembourg. Community legislation, appropriate and effective
measures for utilisation of the fishing quotas allocated to
it for the fishing years 1990 to 1997.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— declare that: — Infringement of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/


87 and Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93: proper
— by having failed to determine the appropriate detail- management of fishing quotas also calls for appropriate
ed rules for the use of the fishing quotas allocated to supervision and monitoring to ensure that restrictions on