Case C-202/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division (Patents Court) by order of that court of 20 December 2004 in Yissum Research and Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem v Comptroller-General of Patents
Date: 2005-08-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: intellectual property, interpretation of the law, medicinal product, patent, pharmaceutical legislation

C 193/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.8.2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 16 June 2005

Belgium (Agent: M. Wimmer) — action under Article 226 EC
for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 13 December 2004
— the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de
Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, G. Arestis and J. Klučka
(Rapporteur),
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 June 2005, in which it:

in Case C-349/04: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Direc-
tive 2002/77/EC — Markets for electronic communications
networks and services — Failure to transpose within the
prescribed period)

(2005/C 193/12)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-349/04 Commission of the European Commu-
nities (Agents: E. Gippini Fournier and K. Mojzesowicz) v
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action
under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought
on 13 August 2004 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and
J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16
June 2005, in which it:

regulations and administrative provisions necessary

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
laws,
to
comply with Directive 2002/6/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 18 February 2002 on reporting formalities
for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member
States of the Community, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 31 of 5.2.2005.

confirm that

1. Declares that, by failing to supply the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities with all the information necessary to allow it
of Commission Directive
to
2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the
markets for electronic communications networks and services have
been complied with, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of that directive;

provisions

the

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 239 of 25.9.2004.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of
Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division (Patents
Court) by order of that court of 20 December 2004 in
Yissum Research and Development Company of
the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem v Comptroller-General of
Patents

(Case C-202/05)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(2005/C 193/14)

(Fifth Chamber)

of 9 June 2005

in Case C-510/04: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Direc-
tive 2002/6/EC — Formalities for ships — Failure to trans-
pose within the prescribed period)

(2005/C 193/13)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-510/04 Commission of the European Commu-
nities (Agents: K. Simonsson and W. Wils) v Kingdom of

(Language of the case: English)

the High Court of

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of
Justice
(England and Wales), Chancery Division (Patents Court) of 20
December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 9 May
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Yissum Research and Development Company of the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem and Comptroller-General of Patents on
the following questions:

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/9

The preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities is requested on the following questions which
arise on the interpretation of Article 1(b) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of
a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (1)
(hereafter ‘the Regulation’):

1. In a case in which the basic patent protects a second
medical application of a therapeutic agent what is meant by
‘product’ in Article 1 (b) of the Regulation and in particular
does the application of the therapeutic agent play any part
in the definition of ‘product’ for the purpose of the Regu-
lation?

2. Does the term ‘combination of active ingredients of a medic-
inal product’ within the meaning of Article l(b) of the Regu-
lation mean that each component of the combination must
have therapeutic activity?

3. Is there a ‘combination of active ingredients of a medicinal
product’ where a combination of substances comprising two
components of which one component is a substance with a
therapeutic effect for a specific indication and the other
component
the medicinal
product that brings about efficacy of the medicinal product
for that indication?

renders possible a form of

(1) OJ L 182, 02.07.1992, p. 1

Gertraud Hartmann and Freistaat Bayern on the following ques-
tions:

(a) Is a German national who, while continuing his employ-
ment relationship as a post office official
in Germany,
moved his permanent residence from Germany to Austria
in 1990 and has since then carried on his occupation as a
frontier worker to be regarded as a migrant worker within
the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) of the
Council on freedom of movement for workers within the
Community (‘Regulation No 1612/68’) for periods between
January 1994 and September 1998?

(b) If so:

it

constitute

Does
indirect discrimination within the
meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 if the
non-working spouse of the person mentioned in (a), who
lives in Austria and is an Austrian national, was excluded
from receiving German child-raising allowance in the
period in question because she did not have either her
permanent
residence or her habitual place of stay in
Germany?

(1) OJ, English Special Edition, 1968 /II), p. 475.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozial-
gericht by order of that court of 10 February 2005 in
Gertraud Hartmann v Freistaat Bayern

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozial-
gericht by order of that court of 10 February 2005 in
Wendy Geven v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-212/05)

(2005/C 193/15)

(Language of the case: German)

(Case C-213/05)

(2005/C 193/16)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht of 10
February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 17 May
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht of 10
February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 17 May
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Wendy Geven and Land Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following
question: