19.7.2008

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/7

(Case C-132/08)

(2008/C 183/14)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LIDL Magyarorság Kereskedelmi Bt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Hírközlési Hatóság Tanácsa

Questions referred

1.Can Article 8 of Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning that no obligations apart from those concerning the free movement of radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment (‘equipment’) in the directive may be laid down as regards the marketing of equipment which falls within the scope of the directive and which has had the CE mark affixed by its producer, established in another Member State?

2.Can Article 2(e) and (f) of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted, as regards obligations relating to marketing, as meaning that an entity may also be regarded as a producer if it markets equipment in a Member State (without being involved in the manufacture of the equipment) and is established in a Member State other than the one where the producer is established?

3.Can Article 2(e)(i), (ii) and (iii), and (f) of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning that the distributor of equipment manufactured in another Member State (who is not the same person as the producer) can be required to issue a declaration of conformity setting out the technical data relating to the equipment?

4.Can Article 2(e)(i), (ii) and (iii), and (f) of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning that an entity which carries out only distribution in one Member State and is established in that State, must also be regarded as the producer of the distributed equipment where the activity of the distributor does not affect the safety characteristics of the equipment?

5.Can Article 2(f) of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning that the distributor as defined in the directive can be required to fulfil the obligations which under the directive are required only of the producer as defined in Article 2(e), such as the issuing of a declaration of conformity as regards technical conditions?

6.Can Article 30 EC (ex-Article 36 EEC) and the so-called mandatory requirements justify an exception to the application of the Dassonville formula, having regard to the principles of equivalence and mutual recognition?

7.Can Article 30 EC (ex-Article 36 EEC) be interpreted as meaning that trade in and import of goods in transit cannot be restricted for any reason other than those listed there?

8.Is the CE mark sufficient to satisfy the principle of equivalence or the principle of mutual recognition and the conditions of Article 30 EC (ex-Article 36 EEC)?

9.Can the CE mark be interpreted as meaning that Member States are not justified in applying any other technical provisions or provisions regarding quality to equipment bearing the mark?

10.Can the provisions of Article 6(1) and of the second sentence of Article 8(2) of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of marketing of goods, the producer and the distributor can be considered to be subject to the same obligations, where the producer does not market the products?

Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (OJ 1999 L 91, p. 10).

Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (OJ 2002 L 11, p. 4).