Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 March 2003 in Case C-485/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal civile e penale di Trento): Francesca Caprini v Conservatore Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura (CCIAA) (Directive 86/653/EEC — Self-employed commercial agents — National legislation requiring enrolment of a commercial agent in a register provided for that purpose as a prior condition of registration in the register of undertakings)
Date: 2003-04-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, right of establishment, sales occupation, self-employed person

26.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/9

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(Fourth Chamber)

(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.

of 6 March 2003

in Case C-478/01: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil
its obligations —
Freedom to supply services — Patent agents — Choice of
domicile with an approved agent — Article 10 EC —
Member States’ duty of cooperation)

(2003/C 101/15)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-478/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Patakia) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:
J. Faltz): Application for a declaration that, by maintaining the
obligation for patent agents, when supplying services, either
to be domiciled in Luxembourg or, failing such domicile, to
opt for domicile with an approved agent, and by failing to
supply information concerning the precise conditions for the
application of Article 85(2) of the Law of 20 July 1992
amending the rules on patents (Mémorial A 1992, p. 1530),
and Articles 19 and 20 of the Law of 28 December 1998
governing access to occupations in craft trades, business and
industry, and to certain liberal professions (Mémorial A 1998,
p. 1494), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 49 EC et seq. and Article 10
EC respectively, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
Chamber,
C.W.A.
D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:

Timmermans,

President

the

of

the precise

1. Declares that, having regard to the requirement that patent
agents, when supplying services, should elect domicile with an
approved agent, and having regard to the fact that
the
Luxembourg Government has not provided information con-
cerning
application of
Article 85(2) of the Law of 20 July 1992 amending the rules
on patents and Articles 19 and 20 of the Law of 28 December
1998 governing access to occupations in craft trades, business
and industry, and to certain liberal professions, the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 49 EC and Article 10 EC.

conditions

the

for

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 6 March 2003

in Case C-485/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal civile e penale di Trento): Francesca Caprini
v Conservatore Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigi-
anato e Agricoltura (CCIAA) (1)

(Directive 86/653/EEC — Self-employed commercial agents
— National legislation requiring enrolment of a commercial
agent in a register provided for that purpose as a prior
condition of registration in the register of undertakings)

(2003/C 101/16)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-485/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
for a
by the Tribunale civile e penale di Trento (Italy)
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Francesca Caprini and Conservatore Camera di
Commercio,
Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura (CCIAA),
on the interpretation of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of
18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the
Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents
(OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,
A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it has ruled:

On a proper reading, Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December
1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating
to self-employed commercial agents does not preclude national
legislation from making registration of a commercial agent in the
register of undertakings subject to that agent’s enrolment in a register
provided for that purpose, on condition that non-registration in the
register of undertakings does not affect the validity of an agency
contract which that agent has concluded with his principal or that

C 101/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2003

the consequences of such non-registration do not adversely affect in
any other way the protection which that directive confers on
commercial agents in their relations with their principals.

( 1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 6 March 2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 6 March 2003

in Case C-6/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v French Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free
movement of goods — Measures having equivalent effect —
Indication of provenance — Regional labels)

(2003/C 101/17)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-6/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: H. van Lier and J. Adda) v French Republic (Agents:
G. de Bergues and A. Colomb): Application for a declaration
that, by maintaining the national legal protection afforded to
the name ‘Salaisons d’Auvergne’ and to the regional labels
‘Savoie’, ‘Franche-Comté’, ‘Corse’, ‘Midi-Pyrénées’, ‘Normandie’,
‘Nord-Pas-de-Calais’, ‘Ardennes de France’, ‘Limousin’, ‘Langue-
doc-Roussillon’ and ‘Lorraine’, the French Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC, the Court (Third
Chamber), composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:

1. Declares that, by maintaining the national legal protection
afforded to the name ‘Salaisons d’Auvergne’ and to the regional
labels ‘Savoie’, ‘Franche-Comté’, ‘Corse’, ‘Midi-Pyrénées’, ‘Nor-
mandie’, ‘Nord-Pas-de-Calais’, ‘Ardennes de France’, ‘Limou-
sin’, ‘Languedoc-Roussillon’ and ‘Lorraine’, the French Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.

in Case C-211/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
transpose Directive 97/66/EC within the prescribed periods)

(2003/C 101/18)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-211/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: C. Schmidt) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:
N. Mackel): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
adopt
necessary to comply with Directive 97/66/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concern-
ing the processing of personal data and the protection of
privacy in the telecommunications sector (OJ 1998 L 24, p. 1),
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
its
obligations under that directive, the Court (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola,
Judges;
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing, within the prescribed periods, to adopt
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the
processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the
telecommunications sector, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.