eu v italia

8/7/2019 EU v Italia

1/2

V

(Announcements)

COURT PROCEEDINGS

COURT OF JUSTICE

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 November2010 European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-47/09) (1)

(Approximation of laws Cocoa and chocolate products Labelling Addition of the word pure or the phrase pure

chocolate to the labelling of certain products)

(2011/C 30/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-

Duvieusart and D. Nardi, Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent,and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Infringementof Article 3 of Directive 2000/36/EC of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 23 June 2000 relating tococoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption

(OJ 2000 L 197, p. 9) and Article 2(1)(a) of Directive2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Councilof 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of theMember States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29) Labelling ofchocolate products Inclusion of the word puro or thephrase cioccolato puro in the labelling of chocolate productscontaining only cocoa butter by way of vegetable fat.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by providing that the adjective pure may be addedto the sales name of chocolate products which do not containvegetable fats other than cocoa butter, the Italian Republic has

failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(5) of Directive2000/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of23 June 2000 relating to cocoa and chocolate products intendedfor human consumption and under Article 3(1) of that directive,read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2000/13/ECof the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member Statesrelating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 December2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from theBaranya Megyei Brsg (Hungary)) Ker-Optika Bt. v

NTSZ Dl-dunntli Regionlis Intzete

(Case C-108/09) (1)

(Free movement of goods Public health Selling ofcontact lenses via the Internet National legislation authorising the sale of contact lenses solely in medical supplyshops Directive 2000/31/EC Information society

Electronic commerce)

(2011/C 30/03)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Baranya Megyei

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ker-Optika Bt.

Defendant: NTSZ Dl-dunntli Regionlis Intzete

ENC 30/2 Official Journal of the European Union 29.1.2011

8/7/2019 EU v Italia

2/2

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling Baranya Megyei Brsg Interpretation of Articles 28 and 30 EC and of Directive2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Councilof 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information

society services, in particular electronic commerce, in theInternal Market (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1) Marketing ofcontact lenses on the internet National rules reserving thesale of contact lenses to shops selling medical supplies


The national rules relating to the selling of contact lenses fall withinthe scope of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament andthe Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of informationsociety services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internalmarket (Directive on electronic commerce), since they concern theact of selling such lenses via the Internet. On the other hand, the

national rules relating to the supply of contact lenses are not coveredby that directive.

Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU, and Directive 2000/31, must beinterpreted as precluding national legislation which authorises theselling of contact lenses only in shops which specialise in medicaldevices.

(1) OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 November2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from theVerwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Wrttemberg (Germany))

Land Baden-Wrttemberg v Panagiotis Tsakouridis

(Case C-145/09) (1)

(Freedom of movement for persons Directive 2004/38/EC Articles 16(4) and 28(3)(a) Union citizen born andhaving resided for over 30 years in the host Member State Absences from the host Member State Criminal

convictions Expulsion decision Imperative grounds ofpublic security)

(2011/C 30/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Wrttemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Land Baden-Wrttemberg

Defendant: Panagiotis Tsakouridis

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling VerwaltungsgerichtshofBaden-Wrttemberg Interpretation of Article 16(4) and28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliamentand of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of

the Union and their family members to move and reside freelywithin the territory of the Member States amending Regulation(EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC,68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC,90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p.77, and Corrigenda in OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35 and OJ 2007 L204, p. 28) Decision to expel a European citizen, who wasborn and had resided for more than thirty years in the hostMember State, on account of a number of criminal convictions Interpretation of the concept of imperative grounds ofpublic security and of the conditions for the loss of protectionagainst expulsion, acquired on account of the abovementionedprovision


1. Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the rightof citizens of the Union and their family members to move andreside freely within the territory of the Member States amendingRegulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC,75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that, in order todetermine whether a Union citizen has resided in the hostMember State for the 10 years preceding the expulsion decision,

which is the decisive criterion for granting enhanced protectionunder that provision, all the relevant factors must be taken intoaccount in each individual case, in particular the duration of eachperiod of absence from the host Member State, the cumulativeduration and the frequency of those absences, and the reasonswhy the person concerned left the host Member State, reasonswhich may establish whether those absences involve the transferto another State of the centre of the personal, family or occupational interests of the person concerned.

2. Should the referring court conclude that the Union citizenconcerned enjoys the protection of Article 28(3) of Directive

2004/38, that provision must be interpreted as meaning thatthe fight against crime in connection with dealing in narcoticsas part of an organised group is capable of being covered bythe concept of imperative grounds of public security which mayjustify a measure expelling a Union citizen who has resided in thehost Member State for the preceding 10 years. Should thereferring court conclude that the Union citizen concerned enjoysthe protection of Article 28(2) of Directive 2004/38, thatprovision must be interpreted as meaning that the fight againstcrime in connection with dealing in narcotics as part of anorganised group is covered by the concept of serious grounds ofpublic policy or public security.

(1) OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.

EN29.1.2011 Official Journal of the European Union C 30/3

eu v italia

Documents