Case C-20/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Forlì by order of that court of 14 December 2004 in the criminal proceedings against K.J.W. Schwibbert
Date: 2005-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: copyright, intellectual property, interpretation of the law, provision of documents, standardisation, technical regulations

C 93/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.4.2005

Pleas in law and main arguments

— whether it

is further compatible with Council Directive

83/189/EEC (2) and Council Directive 88/182/EEC (3).

The amount referred to in the application represents the duty
that the Danish customs authorities omitted to collect in the
period 1994-1997 from an undertaking wrongly permitted by
the said authorities to import certain goods at zero rate. That
permission was given as concerning goods intended for incor-
poration in or for fitting to or equipping ships, boats or other
vessels
in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No
2658/87 (2) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomen-
clature and on the Common Customs Tariff, Annex 1, Section
II. The goods were, however, intended for the manufacture of
containers and could not, as was later acknowledged by the
Danish authorities, be covered by the said provision.

The Danish authorities have unlawfully failed to make the said
amount available to the Commission as own resources. The
claims made in this connection correspond to those made by
the Commission in its application against Denmark in Case C-
392/02 (3).

(1) OJ L 293 of 12.11.1994, p. 9.
(2) OJ L 256 of 7.09.1987, p.1.
(3) OJ C 31 of 8.02.2003, p. 4.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Civile e Penale di Forlì by order of that court of 14
December 2004 in the criminal proceedings against K.J.W.
Schwibbert

(Case C-20/05)

(2005/C 93/11)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Italy) of 14 December 2004, received at

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile e Penale di
Forlì
the Court
Registry on 21 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
criminal proceedings pending against K.J.W. Schwibbert on the
following questions:

(1) OJ 1992 L 346 of 27.11.1992, p. 61.
(2) OJ 1983 L 109 of 26.04.1983, p. 8.
(3) OJ 1988 L 81 of 26.03.1988, p. 75.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for
Trade and Industry) by order of that court of 18 January
2005 in G.J. Dokter, Maatschap Van den Top and
W. Boekhout v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voed-
selkwaliteit

(Case C-28/05)

(2005/C 93/12)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het
bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) (the
Netherlands) of 18 January 2005, received at the Court Registry
on 28 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
ings between G.J. Dokter, Maatschap Van den Top and W.
Boekhout and Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwa-
liteit (Minister for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality) on the
following questions:

1. Does the obligation on Member States under the first indent
of Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC, (1)
read in
conjunction with the second indent of Article 13(1) thereof,
to ensure that laboratory testing to detect the presence of
FMD is carried out by a laboratory listed in Annex B to
Directive 85/511/EEC have direct effect?

2.

(a) Must Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC be inter-
preted as meaning that
legal consequences must be
attached to the fact that the presence of FMD is found
by a laboratory which is not listed in Annex B to Direc-
tive 85/511/EEC?

(b) If the answer to Question 2a is in the affirmative:

— whether the affixing of the distinctive sign SIAE [società
italiana degli autori ed editori] is compatible with Council
Directive 92/100/EEC (1) on rental right and lending right
and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of
intellectual property, and Articles 3 EC and 23 EC to 27
EC;

Is the purpose of Article 11(1) of Directive 85/511/EEC
to protect the interests of individuals, such as the appel-
lants in the main proceedings? If not, can individuals,
such as the appellants in the main proceedings, plead
possible failure to fulfil the obligations which this provi-
sion places on the authorities of the Member States?