Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 November 2002 in Case C-202/01: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Classification as special protection areas — Plaine des Maures)
Date: 2003-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, bird, protected area, protection of animal life

11.1.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 7/5

Robelco NV and Robeco Groep NV on the interpretation
of 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 (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the
Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamb-
er, V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advo-
cate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,
for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 November 2002, in
which it has ruled:

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 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State
may, if it sees fit, and subject to such conditions as it may determine,
protect a trade mark against use of a sign other than for the purposes
of distinguishing goods or services, where use of that sign without
due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental
to, the
distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.

of public policy, public security or public health (OJ, English
Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 117), the Court, composed of:
G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet
and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 November
2002, in which it has ruled:

Neither Article 48 of
the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 39 EC) nor the provisions of secondary legislation which
implement the freedom of movement for workers preclude a Member
State from imposing, in relation to a migrant worker who is a
national of another Member State, administrative police measures
limiting that worker’s right of residence to a part of the national
territory, provided

— that such action is justified by reasons of public order or public

security based on his individual conduct;

( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.

— that, by reason of

their

could
otherwise give rise only to a measure prohibiting him from
residing in, or banishing him from, the whole of the national
territory; and

those reasons

seriousness,

— that the conduct which the Member State concerned wishes to
prevent gives rise, in the case of its own nationals, to punitive
measures or other genuine and effective measures designed to
combat it.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 26 November 2002

(1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.

in Case C-100/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil d’État): Ministre de l’Intérieur v Aitor Oteiza
Olazabal (1)

(Freedom of movement for persons — Restrictions — Public
policy (ordre public) — Police measures limiting the right of
residence of a national of another Member State to part of
the national territory)

(2003/C 7/08)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-100/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Conseil d’État (France) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Ministre
de l’Intérieur and Aitor Oteiza Olazabal, on the interpretation
of Articles 6, 8a and 48 of
the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Articles 12 EC, 18 EC and 39 EC) and of Council
Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the co-
ordination of special measures concerning the movement and
residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 26 November 2002

in Case C-202/01: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v French Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil
its obligations —
Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds —
Classification as special protection areas — Plaine des
Maures)

(2003/C 7/09)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-202/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda) v French Republic

C 7/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.1.2003

(Agents: G. de Bergues and D. Colas): Application for a
declaration that, by failing in sufficient measure to classify as
special protection areas the territories most suitable for the
conservation of the species of wild bird referred to in Annex I
to Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), as amended
by Commission Directive 97/49/EC of 29 July 1997 (OJ 1997
L 223, p. 9), and of migratory species, and, in particular, by
failing to classify a sufficiently large area of land on the Plaine
des Maures (France) as a special protection area, the French
Republic has failed to comply with its obligations under the
Directive and has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
Treaty,
of:
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rap-
porteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 26 November 2002, in which it:

(Sixth Chamber),

the Court

composed

1. Declares that, by not in sufficient measure classifying as special
protection areas the territories most suitable for the conservation
of the species of wild bird referred to in Annex I to Council
Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of
wild birds, as amended by Commission Directive 97/49/EC of
29 July 1997, and of migratory species, and, in particular, by
not classifying a sufficiently large area of the Plaine des Maures
(France) as a special protection area, the French Republic has
failed to comply with its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2)
of that directive;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 19 November 2002

in Case C-319/01: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil
its obligations —
Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environ-
ment — Directive 97/11/EC)

(2003/C 7/10)

(Language of the case: French)

(Agents: initially F. van de Craen, and, subsequently, A. Snoecx):
Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending
Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of
certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ
1997 L 73, p. 5) or, alternatively, by failing to communicate
them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (Sixth
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), Presi-
dent of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 November
2002, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to bring into force within the
period prescribed all the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 97/11/
EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the
assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects
on the environment, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that directive.

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 5 November 2002

in Case C-204/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Tilmann Klett v Bundes-
ministerin für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom to
provide services — Directives 78/686/EEC and 93/16/EEC
— Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other
evidence of formal qualifications — Access to training as a
dental practitioner — Act of Accession of the Republic of
Austria)

(2003/C 7/11)

(Language of the case: German)

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

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

In Case C-319/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. zur Hausen and J. Adda) v Kingdom of Belgium

In Case C-204/01 P: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between