Judgment of the Court of 13 September 2001 in Case C-89/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Schieving-Nĳstad vof and Others v Robert Groeneveld (Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation — Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement — Interpretation — Direct effect — Application to proceedings pending at the time of entry into force in the State concerned — Conditions regarding the time-limit for bringing substantive proceedings — Calculation of that time-limit)
Date: 2001-10-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, partnership

C 303/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.10.2001

3.
For the purposes of determining the five Judges who are
to sit in each case assigned to a large Chamber, that is to say,
the Fifth and Sixth Chamber (to each of which seven Judges
are attached), a list shall be drawn up for the judicial year. That
list shall comprise all the Judges of the Chamber, apart from
the President, in the following order:

Sixth Chamber

(President: Judge Macken)

Mr Gulmann, Mr Puissochet, Mr da Cunha Rodrigues,
Mr Schintgen, Mr Skouris and Ms Colneric, Judges.

(a)

the Judges of the small Chamber composed of four
Judges, in order of seniority;

Appointment of the First Advocate General

(b)

the Judges of the other small Chamber, in the same order.

For each case, the large Chamber shall be composed of:

In accordance with Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the
Court of Justice appointed Advocate General S. Alber as First
Advocate General
for a period of one year starting on
7 October 2001.

— the President,

— the Judge-Rapporteur,

— three Judges designated in the order set out in the relevant
list; the starting point on that list shall be moved down
one name at each general meeting.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 13 September 2001

Replacement of a Judge or Judges prevented from attending
shall be in the order set out in the list. However, should the
President of a large Chamber be prevented from sitting, he
shall be replaced preferably by the President of the small
Chamber.

If the Court, or a Chamber, considers that a number of cases
should be heard and determined together (whether or not they
are formally joined), the composition of the bench shall be
that determined for the first of the cases discussed at a general
meeting.

For the period ending on 6 October 2002, the lists

4.
referred to above are as follows:

Third Chamber

(President: Judge Macken)

Mr Gulmann, Mr Puissochet and Mr da Cunha Rodrigues,
Judges

Fourth Chamber

(President: Judge von Bahr)

Mr Edward, Mr La Pergola and Mr Timmermans, Judges

Fifth Chamber

(President: Judge Jann)

Mr Edward, Mr La Pergola, Mr von Bahr, Mr Timmermans,
Mr Sevo´ n and Mr Wathelet, Judges

in Case C-89/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Schieving-Nijstad vof
and Others v Robert Groeneveld (1)

(Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation —
Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement — Interpretation —
Direct effect — Application to proceedings pending at the
time of entry into force in the State concerned — Conditions
regarding the time-limit for bringing substantive proceed-
ings — Calculation of that time-limit)

(2001/C 303/02)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-89/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Schieving-Nijstad vof and Others and Robert
Groeneveld — on the interpretation of Article 50(6) of the
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights, as set out in Annex 1 C to the Agreement establishing
the World Trade Organisation, approved on behalf of the
Community, as regards matters within its competence, by
Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 (OJ 1994
L 336, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward
(Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n, R. Schintgen,
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and
C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 13 September 2001, in which it has ruled:

27.10.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303/3

1. Where the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (‘the TRIPs Agreement’), as set out in Annex 1
C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation,
approved on behalf of the Community, as regards matters
within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of
22 December 1994, became applicable in the Member State
concerned at a time when the court of first instance has heard
the case but not yet delivered its decision, Article 50 of the TRIPs
Agreement is applicable to the extent that the infringement of
intellectual property rights continues beyond the date on which
the TRIPs Agreement became applicable with regard to the
Community and the Member States.

2.

the TRIPs
The procedural requirements of Article 50 of
Agreement, and in particular Article 50(6), are not such as to
create rights upon which individuals may rely directly before the
Community courts and the courts of
the Member States.
Nevertheless, where the judicial authorities are called upon to
apply national
rules with a view to ordering provisional
measures for the protection of intellectual property rights falling
within a field to which the TRIPs Agreement applies and in
respect of which the Community has already legislated, they are
required to do so as far as possible in the light of the wording
and purpose of Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement, taking
account, more particularly, of all the circumstances of the case
before them, so as to ensure that a balance is struck between the
competing rights and obligations of the intellectual property
right holder and of the defendant.

3. Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement is to be interpreted as
meaning that a request by the defendant is necessary in order
for the provisional measures ordered by way of interim relief to
lapse on the ground that no substantive action has been brought
either within the period prescribed in the provisional measures
or, where no period is prescribed, within 20 working days or
31 calendar days, whichever is the longer period.

4.

5.

is to start,

In the absence of any provision in the TRIPs Agreement
concerning the point in time at which the period of 20 working
days or 31 calendar days prescribed by Article 50(6) of that
agreement
is for each contracting party to
determine when that period is to start, provided always that it
is ‘reasonable’ having regard to the circumstances of each case
and taking into account the balance to be struck between the
competing rights and obligations of the intellectual property
right holder and of the defendant.

it

In the absence of any Community rule on the point and in
accordance with Article 1(1) of the TRIPs Agreement, it is for
each Member State to determine the limits of the powers of the
judicial
provisional measures.
ordering
Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement neither requires nor

authorities

in

forbids the legal order of a Member State to provide, where
appropriate, that its judicial authorities are to determine of their
own motion the period within which substantive proceedings
are to be instituted at the same time as ordering provisional
measures, without any request by the defendant being necessary
for that purpose.

6. Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement neither requires nor
forbids the Member States to provide, where appropriate, that
its judicial authorities are to determine of their own motion the
period within which substantive proceedings are to be instituted.
Since the provision in question is silent on that point, the scope
of the powers conferred on appellate courts in that regard falls
within the competence of each Member State.

(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 13 September 2001

in Case C-374/99: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year
— Aid for consumption of olive oil — Premiums for sheep
and goats)

(2001/C 303/03)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-374/99: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: M. Lo´ pez-Monı´s
Gallego) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
J. Guerra Ferna´ndez) — application for partial annulment of
Commission Decision 1999/596/EC of 28 July 1999
amending Decision 1999/187/EC on the clearance of the
accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the
expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1999
L 226, p. 26) in so far as it relates to the Kingdom of Spain —
the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevo´ n, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 Sep-
tember 2001, in which it: