Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:244
Date: 2014-04-09
Language of the case: Estonian
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: External relations;Free movement of goods;Commercial policy;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property;Customs Union
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Estonia

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 9 April 2014 1. Common commercial policy — Measures to prevent counterfeit or pirated goods being placed on the market — Regulation No 1383/2003 — Action by the customs authorities — Jurisdiction to determine infringement of intellectual property right — Limits — Obligation to provide legal remedies against decisions adopted (Council Regulation No 1383/2003, Art. 13(1)) 2. International agreements — Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) — Observance by the administrative authorities of intellectual property rights — Obligation to provide for the possibility of judicial review (TRIPS Agreement, Arts 41(4) and 49) 1. Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1383/2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the customs authorities, in the absence of any initiative by the holder of the intellectual property right, from initiating and conducting the proceedings referred to in that provision themselves, provided that the relevant decisions taken by those authorities may be subject to appeal ensuring that the rights derived by individuals from EU law and, in particular, from that regulation are safeguarded. It does not appear either from Article 13(1) of any other provision of Regulation No 1383/2003 that the EU legislature intended to require the Member States to reserve the powers to give a decision on the merits of a case to certain authorities. By thus limiting itself to referring to the application of the law in force in the Member State concerned in order to determine whether there has been an infringement of an intellectual property right, the EU legislature has not, in principle, ruled out the possibility that an authority other than a judicial authority may be designated as the authority competent to give a decision on the merits of a case. (see paras 44, 46, 47, 53, operative part) 2. It is clear from the provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), and especially Article 49 thereof, that the enforcement of intellectual property rights may be ensured in the context of administrative procedures on the merits of the case provided that they conform with the guarantees laid down specially in by Article 41 of that agreement. In particular, it is for the national legal order of each Member State, in accordance with the provisions of Article 41(4) of the TRIPS Agreement to give the parties to proceedings the possibility to request the review by a judicial authority of final administrative decisions. (see paras 48, 51)