Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 March 2005 in Case C-209/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) The Queen (on the application of Dany Bidar) v London Borough of Ealing, Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Citizenship of the Union — Articles 12 EC and 18 EC — Assistance for students in the form of subsidised loans — Provision limiting the grant of such loans to students settled in national territory)
Date: 2005-05-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: discrimination on the basis of nationality, education grant, higher education, interpretation of the law, student

C 132/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.5.2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

3. There is no need to limit the temporal effects of the present judg-

(Grand Chamber)

of 15 March 2005

ment.

(1) OJ C 171 of 19.07.2003.

in Case C-209/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's
Bench Division (Administrative Court) The Queen (on the
application of Dany Bidar) v London Borough of Ealing,
Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1)

(Citizenship of the Union — Articles 12 EC and 18 EC —
Assistance for students in the form of subsidised loans —
Provision limiting the grant of such loans to students settled
in national territory)

(2005/C 132/14)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-209/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and
Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United
Kingdom), made by decision of 12 February 2003, received at
the Court on 15 May 2003, in the proceedings pending before
that court between the Queen (on the application of Dany
Bidar) and London Borough of Ealing, Secretary of State for
Education and Skills — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed
of V. Skouris, President, P.
Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A.
Rosas, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur) and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, M.
of Chambers,
Judges;
J. Klučka and U. Lõhmus,
Ilešič,
L.A.Geelhoed, Advocate General, H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar,
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 March
2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

J. Malenovský,

1. Assistance, whether in the form of subsidised loans or of grants,
provided to students lawfully resident in the host Member State to
cover their maintenance costs falls within the scope of application
of the EC Treaty for the purposes of the prohibition of discrimina-
tion laid down in the first paragraph of Article 12 EC.

2. The first paragraph of Article 12 EC must be interpreted as
precluding national legislation which grants students the right to
assistance covering their maintenance costs only if they are settled
in the host Member State, while precluding a national of another
Member State from obtaining the status of settled person as a
student even if that national is lawfully resident and has received a
substantial part of his secondary education in the host Member
State and has consequently established a genuine link with the
society of that State.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 17 March 2005

in Case C-228/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Korkein oikeus): The Gillette Company, Gillette Group
Finland Oy v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy (1)

(Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 6(1)(c) —
Limitations on the protection conferred by the trade mark —
Use by a third party where it is necessary to indicate the
intended purpose of a product or service)

(2005/C 132/15)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

In Case C-228/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Korkein oikeus (Finland), made by
decision of 23 May 2003, received at the Court on 26 May
2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between
The Gillette Company, Gillette Group Finland Oy and LA-
Laboratories Ltd Oy — the Court (Third Chamber), composed
of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, S. von
Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; A.
Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judg-
ment on 17 March 2005, the operative part of which is as
follows:

1. The lawfulness or otherwise of the use of the trade mark under
Article 6(1)(c) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21
December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
relating to trade marks depends on whether that use is necessary
to indicate the intended purpose of a product.

Use of the trade mark by a third party who is not its owner is
necessary in order to indicate the intended purpose of a product
marketed by that third party where such use in practice constitutes
the only means of providing the public with comprehensible and
complete information on that intended purpose in order to preserve
the undistorted system of competition in the market
for that
product.