Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 2004 in Case C-284/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): Land Brandenburg v Ursula Sass (Social policy — Male and female workers — Article 141 EC — Equal pay — Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment — Maternity leave — Passage to a higher salary grade — Failure to take account of the whole of a period of maternity leave taken under the legislation of the former German Democratic Republic)
Date: 2005-01-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective agreement, interpretation of the law, labour relations, parental leave

C 6/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.1.2005

3. A trade name which is not registered or established by use in the
Member State in which the trade mark is registered and in which
protection against the trade name in question is sought may be
regarded as an existing prior right within the meaning of the third
sentence of Article 16(1) of
the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement) if the
proprietor of
falling within the
substantive and temporal scope of that agreement which arose
prior to the trade mark with which it is alleged to conflict and
which entitles him to use a sign identical or similar to that trade
mark.

the trade name has a right

1. Annuls the decision contained in the letter of the Director-General
of the Directorate-General for Agriculture of the Commission of
the European Communities of 18 April 2002 concerning a reduc-
tion in advances extended in the 2002 financial year in accord-
ance with Article 39(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1750/1999 of 23 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for the
application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on
support
from the European Agricultural
recently
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), as most
amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1763/2001 of 6
September 2001;

for rural development

(1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the

costs.

(1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 11 November 2004

in Case C-249/02: Portuguese Republic v Commission of
the European Communities (1)

(Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Financing by
the EAGGF — Actual expenditure of a Member State which
is less than the forecast expenditure notified by it to the
Commission — Power of the Commission to reduce sums
paid as advances — Letter from a Director-General of the
Commission informing the Member State of that reduction
— Act having binding legal effects)

(2005/C 6/09)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 18 November 2004

in Case C-284/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesarbeitsgericht): Land Brandenburg v Ursula
Sass (1)

(Social policy — Male and female workers — Article 141 EC
— Equal pay — Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment
— Maternity leave — Passage to a higher salary grade —
Failure to take account of the whole of a period of maternity
leave taken under the legislation of the former German
Democratic Republic)

(2005/C 6/10)

(Language of the case: German)

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

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

In Case C-249/02: action for annulment under Article 230 EC,
brought on 1 July 2002, between Portuguese Republic (Agent:
L. Fernandes, assisted by C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete)
and Commission of
the European Communities (Agent: L.
Visaggio, assisted by N. Castro Marques) — the Court (Second
Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the
Chamber,
(Rapporteur),
J.-P.
R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Colomer, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11
November 2004, in which it:

C. Gulmann,

Puissochet

In Case C-284/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany), made
by decision of 21 March 2002, received at the Court on 2
August 2002, in the proceedings between Land Brandenburg
and Ursula Sass — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P.
Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, (Rapporteur), R. Silva
de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S. von Bahr, Judges; L. A. Geel-
hoed, Advocate General; F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 2004, in
which it has ruled:

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/7

such as
for

(collective agreement

Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the imple-
mentation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as
regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and
the
working conditions precludes a collective agreement
Bundes-Angestelltentarifvertrag-Ost
civil
servants on a contractual basis in the public sector in East Germany)
from excluding from a qualifying period the part of the period for
which a female worker took maternity leave, under the legislation of
the former German Democratic Republic, which exceeds the protected
period of eight weeks provided for by the legislation of the Federal
Republic of Germany to which that agreement refers, where the objec-
tives and purpose of both periods of leave are the protection of women
as regards pregnancy and maternity, as provided for by Article 2(3)
of that directive. It is for the national court to ascertain whether those
conditions are fulfilled.

— by failing to prohibit provisionally fishing by vessels flying its
flag or registered within its territory when the quotas allocated
to it were deemed to have been exhausted; and

— by failing to initiate administrative or criminal proceedings
against the masters of vessels who infringed the applicable
regulations or against any person responsible for such an
infringement,

Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(2) of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992
establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture
and under Articles 2, 21 and 31 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system
applicable to the common fisheries policy;

(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 18 November 2004

in Case C-317/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Ireland (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Com-
fisheries — Regulations (EEC) Nos
munity system for

3760/92 and 2847/93 — Fishing quotas exceeded)

(2005/C 6/11)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-317/02: action under Article 226 EC for failure to
fulfil obligations, brought on 11 September 2002, between
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Fitch
and T. van Rijn, and subsequently T. van Rijn and B. Doherty)
and Ireland (Agents: D. O'Hagan, assisted by A. Schuster) - the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: A. Borg Barthet (Rappor-
teur), President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and J. Malenovský,
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 18 November 2004, in which it:

1. Declares that:

— by not putting in place the criteria and detailed rules for the

use of the fishing quota allocated to it;

— by failing to ensure compliance with Community rules on the
conservation of aquatic marine living resources by the moni-
toring of fishing activities, appropriate inspection of landings
and the recording of catches, inspections and other controls as
required by the relevant Community regulations;

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 16 November 2004

in Case C-327/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Rechtbank te 's-Gravenhage): Lili Georgieva Panayo-
tova and Others v Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en
Integratie (1)

(Association Agreements between the Communities and,
respectively, Bulgaria, Poland and Slovakia — Right of estab-
lishment — National legislation under which applications for
full residence permits with a view to establishment are
rejected without examination where the applicant lacks a
temporary residence permit)

(2005/C 6/12)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-327/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Rechtbank te 's-Gravenhage (Nether-
lands), made by decision of 16 September 2002, received at the
Court on 18 September 2002, in the proceedings between Lili
Georgieva Panayotova, Radostina Markova Kalcheva,
Izabella
Malgorzata Lis, Lubica Sopova, Izabela Leokadia Topa, Jolanta
Monika Rusiecka and Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en
Integratie — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V.
Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and
R. Silva de Lapuerta (Presidents of Chambers), J.-P. Puissochet
(Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodri-
gues,
Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; M.-F.
Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 16 November 2004, in which it has ruled: