Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 30 May 2002 in Case C-516/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Berufungssenat V der Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland): Walter Schmid (Concept of "court or tribunal of a Member State" within the meaning of Article 234 EC — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)
Date: 2002-07-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company with share capital, foreign capital, interpretation of the law, share, shareholding, tax

C 169/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13.7.2002

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

30 May 2002

in Case C-516/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Berufungssenat V der Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
Niederösterreich und Burgenland): Walter Schmid (1)

(Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the
meaning of Article 234 EC — Lack of jurisdiction of the
Court of Justice)

(2002/C 169/08)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-516/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Berufungssenat V der Finanzlandesdirektion für
Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Austria) for a prelimi-
nary ruling in the proceedings brought by Walter Schmid, on
the interpretation of Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty
(now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr,
D.A.O. Edward, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Tim-
mermans, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 May 2002, in which it
has ruled:

The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction
to answer the questions referred by the Berufungssenat V der
Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland,
by order of 2 December 1999.

(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

14 May 2002

in Case C-2/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf): Michael Hölterhoff v
Ulrich Freiesleben (1)

(Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/
104/EEC — Article 5(1) — Scope of the proprietor’s
exclusive right to the trade mark — Third party — Use of
the trade mark for descriptive purposes)

(2002/C 169/09)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-2/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
a
by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

(Germany)

for

preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Michael Hölterhoff and Ulrich Freiesleben on
the interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989
L 40, p. 1), the Court, composed of: P. Jann, President of the
Fifth Chamber, acting for the President, F. Macken, N. Colneric
and S. von Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann
(Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and
V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May
2002, in which it has ruled:

Article 5(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December
1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to
trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a
trade mark cannot rely on his exclusive right where a third party, in
the course of commercial negotiations, reveals the origin of goods
which he has produced himself and uses the sign in question solely to
denote the particular characteristics of the goods he is offering for sale
so that there can be no question of the trade mark used being
perceived as a sign indicative of the undertaking of origin.

(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

16 May 2002

in Case C-63/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Land Baden-Württem-
berg and Günther Schilling, participant: Oberbundesan-
walt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, v Bezirksregierung
Lüneburg and Hans-Otto Nehring, participant: Oberbun-
desanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (1)

(Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC) No 3887/
92 — Integrated administration and control system for
certain Community aid schemes — Implementing rules —
Application for ‘livestock’ aid — Checks on animals —
Reduction of the amount of aid)

(2002/C 169/10)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-63/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between