Case C-227/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank Amsterdam by judgment of that Court of 21 May 2003 in the case of A.J. Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën against Raad van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank
Date: 2003-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: family benefit, interpretation of the law, social legislation, social-security benefit, social-security harmonisation, worker (EU)

C 171/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2003

2.

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive 98/79/EC establishes harmonised rules applicable to
the characteristics and authorisation procedures for in vitro
diagnostic medical devices in order to ensure their free
movement under the best safety conditions. Article 22 of the
directive provides that Member States are to adopt the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with that directive not later than 7 December 1999 and that
they are immediately to inform the Commission thereof. The
Commission received from the French authorities Order
No 2001-198 of 1 March 2001 which contains the legal
provisions necessary to transpose the directive. However, it is
clear from various letters from those authorities that the
implementing decrees have still to be adopted and published
before certain provisions of the order become applicable. Since
the Commission has not received any information from which
it could conclude that those decrees have been adopted, it
considers that the French Republic has not yet taken all the
measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event,
has not communicated those measures to the Commission.

( 1) OJ L 331, 7.12.1998, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank
Amsterdam by judgment of that Court of 21 May 2003 in
the case of A.J. Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën against Raad
van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank

(Case C-227/03)

(2003/C 171/25)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank Amster-
dam (District Court, Amsterdam) of 21 May 2003, received at
the Court Registry on 26 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of A.J. Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën against Raad
van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank on the following
questions:

1. Does Article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) pre-
clude legislation of a Member State under which a person
who has ceased all occupational activity in its territory
remains insured under that legislation only if he continues
to reside there, whilst that person remains insured under
the legislation of that Member State in respect of certain
other branches of social security irrespective of his place
of residence?

2. Does the fact that under the legislation of that Member
State the person has the option of being voluntarily
insured in respect of a number of branches of social
security, without such voluntary insurance being con-
ditional on his remaining resident in that Member State,
have any bearing on the answer to Question 1?

If the answer to the Question 1 is in the negative, the following
question is referred in the alternative:

3.

In a situation such as that described above, is Article 39
EC to be interpreted as meaning that the replacement
of compulsory insurance with voluntary insurance is
incompatible therewith where the reason for the termin-
ation of the compulsory insurance is the introduction of
a residence requirement?

(1) OJ 1971, L 149, p. 2.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein oikeus
by order of that Court of 23 May 2003 in the case of The
Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy against
LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy

(Case C-228/03)

(2003/C 171/26)

Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of
European Communities by order of
the Korkein oikeus
(Supreme Court) of 23 May 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 26 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of The Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy against
LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy on the following questions:

When applying Article 6(1)(c) of the First Council Directive
89/104/EEC (1) to approximate the laws of the Member States
relating to trade marks:

(1) What are the criteria

(a) on the basis of which the question of regarding a
product as a spare part or accessory is to be decided,
and

(b) on the basis of which those products to be regarded
as other than spare parts and accessories which can
also fall within the scope of the said subparagraph
are to be determined?

(2)

Is the permissibility of the use of a third party’s trade
mark to be assessed differently, depending on whether
the product is like a spare part or accessory or whether it
is a product which can fall within the scope of the said
subparagraph on another basis?