Case C-140/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by order of that court dated 17 December 2001, in the case of Regina against Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ex parte: S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Limited and others, Interveners: Cypfruvex (UK) Ltd, Cypfruvex Fruit and Vegetable (Cypfruvex) Enterprises Ltd
Date: 2002-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: citrus fruit, labelling, originating product, packaging, preliminary issue, third country

15.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 144/23

income-based jobseeker’s allowance to a person in the
circumstances of the claimant in the present case?

(1) on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ

L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2) (SE SER 1 68(II), p. 475).

(2) on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within
the Community for workers of Member States and their families
(OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 13) (SE SER 1 68(II), p. 485).

in respect of which registration is sought, the same type
of goods are commonly found in the trade and the nature
of the marks influences the perception of the marks by
the targeted public.

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94:
the requirements imposed by the Court of First Instance
with respect to distinctiveness are too stringent.

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94:
the Court of First Instance imposes incorrect requirements
with respect to distinctiveness which are not provided for
in the Regulation by presuming, without any factual
basis, that the existence — assumed by it — of ‘a wide
variety of designs’ and the average consumer’s familiarity
with shapes similar to those at issue influence distinc-
tiveness.

(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark, OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,
by order of that court dated 17 December 2001, in the
case of Regina against Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Food, Ex parte: S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Limited and
others, Interveners: Cypfruvex (UK) Ltd, Cypfruvex Fruit
and Vegetable (Cypfruvex) Enterprises Ltd

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Security
Commissioners, London, by order dated 28 March 2002,
in the case of Brian Francis Collins against Secretary of
State for Work and Pensions

(Case C-138/02)

(2002/C 144/39)

(Case C-140/02)

(2002/C 144/40)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Social Security
Commissioners, London, dated 28 March 2002, which was
received at the Court Registry on 12 April 2002,
for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Brian Francis Collins and
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the following
questions:

1.

2.

3.

Is a person in the circumstances of the claimant in the
present case a worker for the purposes of Regulation
No 1612/68 (1) of the Council of 15 October 1968?

If the answer to question 1 is not in the affirmative, does
a person in the circumstances of the claimant in the
present case have a right to reside in the United Kingdom
pursuant to Directive No 68/360 (2) of the Council of
15 October 1968?

If the answers to both questions 1 and 2 are not in the
affirmative, do any provisions or principles of European
Community law require the payment of a social security
benefit with conditions of entitlement like those for

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
dated 17 December 2001, which was received at the Court
Registry on 16 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Regina against Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,
Ex parte: S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Limited and others, Inter-
veners: Cypfruvex (UK) Ltd, Cypfruvex Fruit and Vegetable
(Cypfruvex) Enterprises Ltd, on the following questions:

1. Whether, where citrus fruit originating in one third
country has been shipped to another third country, the
special requirement that the packaging shall bear an
appropriate origin mark pursuant
to item 16.1 of
Annex IVA of Directive 77/93/EEC, now Directive 2000/
29/EC (1), can only be fulfilled in the country of origin or
whether it may alternatively be fulfilled in such other
third country?

2. Whether the official statement required by items 16.2 to
16.4 of Directive 2000/29/EC as to the country of origin
must be made by an official in the country of origin or

C 144/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.6.2002

whether it may be made by an official in such other third
country?

— fails to provide that

the conservation measures
referred to in Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43 apply
to the sites referred to in Article 5(1) of that directive,

(1) Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective
measures against the introduction into the Community of organ-
isms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread
within the Community OJ L 169, 10.7.2000, p. 1.

has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5, 6 and
7 of Directive 92/43/EEC;

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Action brought on 17 April 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-143/02)

(2002/C 144/41)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 April
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Roberto Amorosi,
acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by adopting legislating implementing Direc-

tive 92/43/EEC (1) which:

— fails to include within the scope of the laws on the
assessment of effects on the environment projects
other than those listed in the Italian legislation
implementing directives on environmental impact
that are nevertheless likely to have a significant
effect on sites of Community importance,

— fails to impose upon the competent Italian auth-
orities any obligation to take appropriate steps in
respect of special protection areas to avoid the
deterioration of natural habitats and of the habitats
of species or disturbance of the species for which
the areas were designated, in so far as such disturb-
ance could be significant in relation to the objectives
of the directive,

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 6(3) of the directive provides that any plan or project
which, either individually or in combination with other plans
or projects, has a significant effect on a site of Community
importance falls within the directive’s scope. The word ‘any’
used by the Community legislator leaves no doubt that it refers
to all projects, even if not covered by the directives on the
assessment of environmental impact and even if not directly
connected with or necessary to the management of the site.

However, Article 5(3) of Presidential Decree 357/97 limits the
decree’s scope to a restricted list of projects expressly men-
tioned therein so that a whole series of projects of various
kinds are excluded even though they are likely to have a
significant effect on sites of Community importance.

Under Article 6 of the Italian decree, which transposes Article 7
of the directive, only the obligations arising under Article 4(2)
and (3) and Article 5 and not those arising under Article 4(1)
of the decree — which transposes Article 6(2) of the directive
— apply to special protection areas.

It follows that the Italian legislation at issue imposes no
obligation on the competent Italian authorities to take steps,
in relation to special protection areas, to avoid the deterioration
of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as the
disturbance of the species for which the areas have been
designated.

Lastly, Decree 357/97 wholly fails to transpose the provisions
of Article 5(4) of the directive.

The implication of this is that, should the Commission, on
finding an omission from the national list of a Member State,
initiate a bilateral consultation procedure with that Member
State and, failing to resolve the dispute within a period of six
months, forward to the Council a proposal relating to the
selection of the site in question as a site of Community