Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 January 2004 in Case C-201/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen on the application of Delena Wells v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — National measure granting consent for mining operations without an environmental impact assessment being carried out — Direct effect of directives Triangular situation)
Date: 2004-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental impact, impact study, interpretation of the law, prevention of pollution

C 47/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.2.2004

Regulation (EC) No 241/1999 of 25 January 1999 (OJ
1999 L 27, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the
Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and P. Jann, Judges; D. Ruiz-
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 7 January 2004, in which it has ruled:

1. Articles 2 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of
22 December 1994 laying down measures concerning the entry
into the Community and the export and re-export from the
Community of goods infringing certain intellectual property
rights, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 241/1999
of 25 January 1999, are applicable to situations in which
goods in transit between two countries not belonging to the
European Community are temporarily detained in a Member
State by the customs authorities of that State.

2.

The duty to interpret national law so as to be compatible with
Community law, in the light of its wording and purpose, in
order to attain the aim pursued by the latter, cannot, of itself
and independently of a law adopted by a Member State, have
the effect of determining or aggravating the liability in criminal
law of an entity which has failed to meet the requirements of
Regulation No 3295/94.

(1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.

interpretation of Article 6(1)(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 (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting
for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans
and D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advo-
cate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 January 2004, in which
it has ruled:

Article 6(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 Decem-
ber 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to
trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that, where there exists a
likelihood of aural confusion between a word mark registered in one
Member State and an indication, in the course of trade, of the
geographical origin of a product originating in another Member
State, the proprietor of the trade mark may, pursuant to Article 5 of
Directive 89/104, prevent the use of the indication of geographical
origin only if that use is not in accordance with honest practices in
industrial or commercial matters. It is for the national court to carry
out an overall assessment of all the circumstances of the particular
case in that regard.

(1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 7 January 2004

in Case C-100/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesgerichtshof): Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH &
Co. v Putsch GmbH (1)

(Directive 89/104/EEC — Limitation of the effects of a trade
mark in relation to indications concerning geographical
origin — Use of a geographical indication as a trade mark
as an element of use in accordance with ‘honest practices in
industrial or commercial matters’)

(2004/C 47/13)

(Language of the case: German)

(Fifth Chamber)

of 7 January 2004

in Case C-201/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen on
the application of Delena Wells v Secretary of State for
Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1)

(Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of
certain projects on the environment — National measure
granting consent for mining operations without an environ-
mental impact assessment being carried out — Direct effect
of directives Triangular situation)

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

(2004/C 47/14)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-100/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. and Putsch GmbH, on the

In Case C-201/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s

21.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/9

Bench Division (Administrative Court), for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between The
Queen on the application of Delena Wells and Secretary of
State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, on
the interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June
1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public
and private projects on the environment, the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La
Pergola, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Princi-
pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
7 January 2004, in which it has ruled:

1. Article 2(1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June
1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
private projects on the environment, read in conjunction with
Article 4(2) thereof, is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the
the
context of applying provisions such as section 22 of
Planning and Compensation Act 1991 and Schedule 2 to that
Act, the decisions adopted by the competent authorities, whose
effect
the resumption of mining operations,
comprise, as a whole, a ‘development consent’ within the
meaning of Article 1(2) of that directive, so that the competent
authorities are obliged, where appropriate, to carry out an
assessment of the environmental effects of such operations.

is to permit

In a consent procedure comprising several stages, that assess-
ment must, in principle, be carried out as soon as it is possible
to identify and assess all the effects which the project may have
on the environment.

2.

In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, an
individual may, where appropriate, rely on Article 2(1) of
Directive 85/337, read in conjunction with Articles 1(2) and
4(2) thereof.

3. Under Article 10 EC the competent authorities are obliged to
take, within the sphere of their competence, all general or
particular measures for remedying the failure to carry out an
assessment of the environmental effects of a project as provided
for in Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337.

The detailed procedural rules applicable in that context are a
matter for the domestic legal order of each Member State, under
the principle of procedural autonomy of the Member States,
provided that they are not less favourable than those governing
similar domestic situations (principle of equivalence) and that
they do not render impossible in practice or excessively difficult
the exercise of rights conferred by the Community legal order
(principle of effectiveness).

In that regard, it is for the national court to determine whether
it is possible under domestic law for a consent already granted
to be revoked or suspended in order to subject the project to an
assessment of its environmental effects, in accordance with the
requirements of Directive 85/337, or alternatively,
the
individual so agrees, whether it is possible for the latter to claim
compensation for the harm suffered.

if

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 11 December 2003

in Case C-289/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgericht München): AMOK Verlags GmbH
v A & R Gastronomie GmbH (1)

(Freedom to provide services — Lawyer established in
one Member State working in conjunction with a lawyer
established in another Member State — Legal costs to be
reimbursed by the unsuccessful party in a dispute to the
successful party Limitation)

(2004/C 47/15)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-289/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) for a prelimi-
nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between AMOK Verlags GmbH and A & R Gastronomie
GmbH, on the interpretation of Articles 12 EC and 49 EC, the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),
acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola
and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; M.-
F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 11 December 2003, in which it has ruled:

1. Article 49 EC, Article 50 EC and Council Directive 77/249/
EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by
lawyers of freedom to provide services must be interpreted as not
precluding a judicial rule of a Member State limiting to the
level of the fees which would have resulted from representation
by a lawyer established in that State the reimbursement, by an
unsuccessful party in a dispute to the successful party, of costs
in respect of the services provided by a lawyer established in
another Member State.

2. Article 49 EC and Directive 77/249 must, however, be
construed as precluding a judicial rule of a Member State which
provides that the successful party to a dispute, in which that
party has been represented by a lawyer established in another
Member State, cannot recover from the unsuccessful party, in
addition to the fees of that lawyer, the fees of a lawyer practising
before the court seised of the dispute who, under the national
legislation in question, was required to work in conjunction
with the first lawyer.

(1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.

(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.