C 30/2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 29.1.

2011

(Announcements)

COURT PROCEEDINGS

COURT OF JUSTICE

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 November
2010 — 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)
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(5) of Directive
2000/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
23 June 2000 relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended
for human consumption and under Article 3(1) of that directive,
read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2000/13/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March
2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs;

(2011/C 30/02)
2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Language of the case: Italian

Parties (1) OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.

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

Duvieusart and D. Nardi, Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 December
and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato) 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Baranya Megyei Bíróság (Hungary)) — Ker-Optika Bt. v
ÀNTSZ Dél-dunántúli Regionális Intézete

Re: (Case C-108/09) (1)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
(Free movement of goods — Public health — Selling of
of Article 3 of Directive 2000/36/EC of the European
contact lenses via the Internet — National legislation authä
Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2000 relating to
orising the sale of contact lenses solely in medical supply
cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption
shops — Directive 2000/31/EC — Information society —
(OJ 2000 L 197, p. 9) and Article 2(1)(a) of Directive
Electronic commerce)
2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and adverä (2011/C 30/03)
tising of foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29) — Labelling of
chocolate products — Inclusion of the word ‘puro’ or the Language of the case: Hungarian
phrase ‘cioccolato puro’ in the labelling of chocolate products
containing only cocoa butter by way of vegetable fat.
Referring court
Baranya Megyei
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Ker-Optika Bt.
1. Declares that, by providing that the adjective ‘pure’ may be added
to the sales name of chocolate products which do not contain
vegetable fats other than cocoa butter, the Italian Republic has Defendant: ÀNTSZ Dél-dunántúli Regionális Intézete
29.1.2011 EN Official Journal of the European Union
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Baranya Megyei Bíróság —
Interpretation of Articles 28 and 30 EC and of Directive
2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information
society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the
Internal Market (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1) — Marketing of
contact lenses on the internet — National rules reserving the
sale of contact lenses to shops selling medical supplies
Operative part of the judgment
The national rules relating to the selling of contact lenses fall within
the scope of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and
the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information
society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal
market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), since they concern the
act of selling such lenses via the Internet. On the other hand, the
national rules relating to the supply of contact lenses are not covered
by that directive.
Articles 34 TFEU and 36 TFEU, and Directive 2000/31, must be
interpreted as precluding national legislation which authorises the
selling of contact lenses only in shops which specialise in medical
devices.
(1) OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 November
2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany))
— Land Baden-Württemberg 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 and
having resided for over 30 years in the host Member State
— Absences from the host Member State — Criminal
convictions — Expulsion decision — Imperative grounds of
public security)
(2011/C 30/04)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Land Baden-Württemberg
Defendant: Panagiotis Tsakouridis
C 30/3
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof
Baden-Württemberg — Interpretation of Article 16(4) and
28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of
the Union and their family members to move and reside freely
within 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 L
204, p. 28) — Decision to expel a European citizen, who was
born and had resided for more than thirty years in the host
Member State, on account of a number of criminal convictions
— Interpretation of the concept of ‘imperative grounds of
public security’ and of the conditions for the loss of protection
against expulsion, acquired on account of the abovementioned
provision
Operative part of the judgment
1. Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right
of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and
reside freely within 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 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to
determine whether a Union citizen has resided in the host
Member State for the 10 years preceding the expulsion decision,
which is the decisive criterion for granting enhanced protection
under that provision, all the relevant factors must be taken into
account in each individual case, in particular the duration of each
period of absence from the host Member State, the cumulative
duration and the frequency of those absences, and the reasons
why the person concerned left the host Member State, reasons
which may establish whether those absences involve the transfer
to another State of the centre of the personal, family or occupaä
tional interests of the person concerned.
2. Should the referring court conclude that the Union citizen
concerned enjoys the protection of Article 28(3) of Directive
2004/38, that provision must be interpreted as meaning that
the fight against crime in connection with dealing in narcotics
as part of an organised group is capable of being covered by
the concept of ‘imperative grounds of public security’ which may
justify a measure expelling a Union citizen who has resided in the
host Member State for the preceding 10 years. Should the
referring court conclude that the Union citizen concerned enjoys
the protection of Article 28(2) of Directive 2004/38, that
provision must be interpreted as meaning that the fight against
crime in connection with dealing in narcotics as part of an
organised group is covered by the concept of ‘serious grounds of
public policy or public security’.
(1) OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.