Case C-23/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep te Brussel by order of 15 January 2001 in the case of NV Robelco and NV Robeco Groep
Date: 2001-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, interpretation of the law, labelling, trade mark, trade-mark law

10.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 79/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep
te Brussel by order of 15 January 2001 in the case of NV
Robelco and NV Robeco Groep

(Case C-23/01)

(2001/C 79/34)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 15 January 2001 by the
Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Court of Appeal, Brussels), which
was received at the Court Registry on 22 January 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of NV Robelco and NV Robeco
Groep on the following questions:

— Must Article 5(5) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC
of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the
Member States relating to trade marks be interpreted
as meaning that the possibility laid down therein for
protection by Member States can be afforded only against
the use of a sign which is identical to the trade mark or
can it also be afforded in that case against the use of a
sign similar to the trade mark?

— If that protection can also be afforded against a sign
similar to the trade mark, does unlawful similarity within
the meaning of the abovementioned article require that
confusion can arise as a consequence or is likelihood of
association sufficient, in the sense that in the minds of
those confronted by the trade mark and the sign one
will suggest the other without any confusion resulting
therefrom, or must no likelihood of association at all
exist in this respect?

Action brought on 24 January 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the United Kingdom

(Case C-31/01)

(2001/C 79/35)

An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 January
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz,
member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Centre
Wagner.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
European Parliament and Council Directive 98/4/EC (1) of
16 February 1998 amending Directive 93/38/EEC (2)
coordinating the procurement procedures of entities
operating in the water, energy, transport and telecom-
munications sectors or by failing to adopt the measures
to comply with it, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 2(1) of the said Directive;

— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State carries by implication an obligation
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 16 February
1999 without the United Kingdom having enacted the pro-
visions necessary to comply with the directive referred to in
the conclusions of the Commission.

(1) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
di Cassazione — Sezione Tributaria by order of that court
of 12 July 2000 in the case of Enirisorse SpA against
Ministero delle Finanze

(Case C-34/01 to C-38/01)

(2001/C 79/36)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di
Cassazione — Sezione Tributaria (Supreme Court of Cassation,
Tax Chamber) of 12 July 2000, which was received at the
Court Registry on 25 January 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Enirisorse SpA against Ministero delle Finanze
on the following questions:

1. Does allocation to a public undertaking — operating in
the market for dockside unloading and loading of goods
— of a significant proportion of a charge (port charge on
loading and unloading goods) paid to the State by
operators which have not obtained any services from that
undertaking, constitute a special or exclusive right or a
measure contrary to the rules of the Treaty, in particular
the rules on competition, within the meaning of Article
90(1) of the Treaty?