Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 16 May 2002 in Case C-63/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Land Baden-Württemberg and Günther Schilling, participant: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, v Bezirksregierung Lüneburg and Hans-Otto Nehring, participant: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (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)
Date: 2002-07-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, Germany, aid to agriculture, animal production, area of holding, interpretation of the law

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

13.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 169/7

beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht,

Land Baden-Württemberg and Günther Schilling, participant:
Oberbundesanwalt
and
Bezirksregierung Lüneburg and Hans-Otto Nehring, partici-
pant: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, on
the interpretation of the first and second sentences of the first
subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules
for applying the integrated administration and control system
for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36), the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skou-
ris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 16 May 2002, in which it has ruled:

ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court
against Kenny Roland Lyckeskog, on the interpretation of the
third paragraph of Article 234 EC and of Article 45(1) of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983
setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty
(OJ 1983 L 105, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC)
No 355/94 of 14 February 1994 (OJ 1994 L 46, p. 5), the
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,
F. Macken, N. Colneric, and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet, V. Skouris, J.N.
Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 June
2002, in which it has ruled:

On a proper construction of the first and second sentences of the first
subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for
applying the integrated administration and control system for certain
Community aid schemes, the unit amount of the aid must be reduced
even where the discrepancy between the number of animals declared
and the number of animals found during checks is not attributable to
incorrect information given by the applicant but to the fact that the
necessary conditions for the grant of the premiums are not satisfied
in regard to certain animals.

1. Where the decisions of a national court or tribunal can be
appealed to the supreme court under conditions such as those
that apply to decisions of the referring court in the present case,
that court or tribunal is not under the obligation referred to in
the third paragraph of Article 234 EC.

(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.

2.

The question whether an importation of goods
is non-
commercial, within the meaning of Article 45(2)(b) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up
a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, as amended
by Council Regulation (EC) No 355/94 of 14 February 1994,
must be examined case by case on the basis of an overall
assessment of the circumstances, taking into account the nature
of the importation and the quantity of goods involved, the
frequency with which those goods are imported by the traveller
concerned, but also, where appropriate, taking account of that
traveller’s lifestyle and habits or of his family environment.

3. Article 45 of Regulation No 918/83, as amended by
Regulation No 355/94, precludes national administrative
instructions or practices which impose binding quantitative
limits on relief
from customs duties or which would have
the effect of creating an irrebuttable presumption that the
importation concerned is commercial by reason of the quantity
of goods imported.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

4 June 2002

in Case C-99/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Hovrätten för Västra Sverige): Kenny Roland
Lyckeskog (1)

(Questions for a preliminary ruling — Obligation to refer
— Court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no
law — Interpretation of
judicial remedy under national
Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 — Community system of
reliefs from customs duty)

(2002/C 169/11)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.

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

In Case C-99/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Hovrätt för Västra Sverige (Sweden) for a preliminary