Case C-291/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium) by judgment of that court of 4 June 2004 in the case of Ministère Public against Léon Henri Schmitz
Date: 2004-08-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU law - national law, head office, interpretation of the law, residence, vehicle registration

28.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/17

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Oristano by order of that court of 14 June 2004 in the
case of Ignazio Medda against the Banco di Napoli SpA
and the Regione Autonoma della Sardegna

(Case C-285/04)

(2004/C 217/31)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunale di Oristano (Italy)
of 14 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 1 July
2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ignazio Medda
against the Banco di Napoli SpA and the Regione Autonoma
della Sardegna on the validity of Commission Decision No
97/612/EC (1) having regard to the following defects:

(a) lack of competence on the part of the Commission to
the

the contested decision in infringement of

adopt
combined provisions of Article 36 EC;

(b) infringement of the provisions governing the procedure

provided for under Article 88(1) EC;

(c) infringement of the provisions governing the procedure

provided for under Article 88(2) and (3) EC;

(d) failure to state reasons for the decision in application of the
combined provisions of Articles 253, 88(3) and 87(1) EC;

(e) infringement and failure to comply with the ‘practice for
aid to farms in difficulty’ and with the ‘Community guide-
lines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in
difficulty’;

(f) breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.

(1) OJ L 248 of 11.9.1997, p. 27.

Appeal brought on 5 July 2004 by Eurocermex SA against
the judgment delivered on 29 April 2004 by the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-399/02 between Eurocermex SA
and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-286/04 P)

(2004/C 217/32)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 April 2004 by
the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities in Case T-399/02 between Eurocermex SA
and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 5 July 2004 (fax
29.6.2004) by Eurocermex SA, represented by A. Bertrand,
Avocat.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— reverse the decision of the Court of First Instance of 29

April 2004;

— annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

those elements lacked distinctiveness so that

The Court of First Instance carried out a separate examination
of the various elements of which the mark applied for is
composed and, confirming the decision of the Board of Appeal,
held that
the
consumer would not be able to identify the origin of the
goods. In so doing, the Court of First Instance sought to sepa-
rate the various elements in order to consider them individually
and thus deny the mark applied for any distinctive character.
That represents a serious error in analysis and in law, as it is
the overall perception of the sign as applied for that must be
considered and not the various elements of the sign, taken indi-
vidually.

In any event, the mark acquired its distinctive character in
consequence of the widespread use which has been made of it
as a rallying sign for a product and/or an undertaking.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium) by judgment of that court of
4 June 2004 in the case of Ministère Public against Léon
Henri Schmitz

(Case C-291/04)

(2004/C 217/33)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities for a preliminary ruling by judgment of the
Tribunal de Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium) of 4 June 2004, in
the case of Ministère Public against Léon Henri Schmitz, which
was received at the Court Registry on 9 July 2004.

The Tribunal de Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium) asks the Court
of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following ques-
tion:

Do Articles 10, 39, 43 and 49 of the EEC Treaty preclude a
Member State from adopting a measure requiring a worker
who is resident within its territory to register his vehicle there
even when that vehicle belongs to his employer, a company
established in another Member State and to which that worker
is linked by an employment contract but in which at the same
time he occupies the position of shareholder, director, day-to-
day manager or similar?