Case C-423/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by a Social Security Commissioner, London, by direction of that tribunal dated 14 September 2004, in the case of Sarah Margaret Richards against Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Date: 2004-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: LGBTIQ persons, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, pension scheme, social security

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/31

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Audiencia
Provincial de Barcelona (15th Chamber) by decision of
that court of 28 June 2004 in the case of Matratzen
Concord AG against Hukla Gemany SA

pension at the age of 60 had she been held to be a woman
as a matter of national law?

(2) If so, from what date should the Court's ruling on question

1 have effect?

(Case C-421/04)

(2004/C 300/57)

(1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progres-
sive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and
women in matters of social security (OJ L 6, 10.01.1979, p. 24).

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of
the Audiencia Provincial
(Provincial Court)
(15th Chamber), Barcelona (Spain) of 28
June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 1 October 2004,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Matratzen Concord AG
against Hukla Gemany SA on the following question:

‘May the validity of the registration of a trade mark in a
Member State, where that trade mark is devoid of any distinc-
tive character or serves,
in trade, to designate the product
which it covers or its kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose,
value, geographical origin or other characteristics of goods, in
the language of another Member State when that language is
not the language spoken in the first Member State, as may be
the case so far as concerns use of the Spanish trade mark
“MATRATZEN” to designate mattresses and related products,
constitute a disguised restriction on trade between Member
States?’

Reference for a preliminary ruling by a Social Security
Commissioner, London, by direction of that tribunal dated
14 September 2004, in the case of Sarah Margaret Richards
against Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

(Case C-423/04)

(2004/C 300/58)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by direction of a Social Security Commis-
sioner, London, dated 14 September 2004, which was received
at the Court Registry on 4 October 2004 for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Sarah Margaret Richards and Secretary of
State for Work and Pensions on the following questions:

Action brought on 4 October 2004 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-424/04)

(2004/C 300/59)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 October
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by K. Wiedner and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to provide for an obligation on
contracting authorities to ensure genuine competition by
the presence of a minimum of five tenderers in restricted
procedures, even where no range is prescribed, the French
its obligations under Article
Republic has failed to fulfil
19(2) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993, (1)
Article 27(2) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June
1992 (2) and Article 22(2) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC
of 14 June 1993; (3)

2. declare that, by excluding from the scope of the French
Code of Public Procurement contracts concerning loans or
financial undertakings, whether intended to cover financing
or liquidity requirements, not connected with real property
transactions, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under Article 1(a)(vii) of Council Directive
92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 and Article 1(4)(c)(iv) of
Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993; (4)

3. declare that, by providing that public contracts concerning

(1) Does Directive 79/7 (1) prohibit the refusal of a retirement
pension to a male-to-female transsexual until she reaches
the age of 65 and who would have been entitled to such a

— legal services,

— social and health services,