Case C-238/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) by order of that court of 13 April 2005 in the case of Asnef-Equifax Servicios de Información sobre Solvencia y Crédito, S.L. and Administración del Estado v Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (AUSBANC)
Date: 2005-08-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: credit institution, exchange of information, financial institution, financial solvency, inter-company agreement, interpretation of the law, restriction on competition

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/7

Is the Law of 14 July 1994 on financing for veterinary inspec-
tions compatible with Community law? Must the veterinary
charges provided for in that national law be regarded as consti-
tuting both an impermissible restriction on intra-Community
trade and an unlawful charge having an effect equivalent to a
customs duty and/or as a measure having equivalent effect to a
quantitative restriction, and consequently be regarded as an aid
measure which ought to have been notified to the Commis-
sion?

legal conclusions from its own findings, by refusing to take
into account the weak character of the prior mark (such as
FLEX) in its assessment of the degree of similarity between this
mark and a complex mark (such as FLEXI AIR), in which it was
reproduced.

is submitted that signs are not similar or dissimilar in
It
abstracto, but in concreto (i.e. in light of the perception of the
relevant public of such signs). Thus,
if the signs had been
correctly compared in concreto, the logical conclusion would
have been to place less importance on non distinctive signs or
prior marks with a weak distinctive character.

Appeal brought on 28 May 2005 by L'Oréal SA against the
judgment delivered on 16 March 2005 by the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-112/03 between L'Oréal SA and
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) having been Revlon Suisse SA

The Appellant also contends that the Court of First Instance
infringed Articles 36 and 53 of the Statute of the Court of
Justice, the contested Judgment being vitiated by a defective
statement of reasons. It is submitted that the Court of First
Instance breached its duty to state reasons by merely ruling, at
paragraph 82, that the ‘weak distinctive character of the earlier
mark is not disputed’, without drawing any conclusion on the
likelihood of confusion.

(Case C-235/05 P)

(2005/C 205/13)

(Language of the case: English)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 March 2005
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in case T-112/03 (1) between L'Oréal
SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(OHIM), the other party to the
(Trade Marks and Designs)
proceedings before the Board of Appeal of
the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and
Designs) having been Revlon Suisse SA., was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 May
2005 by L'Oréal SA, established in Paris (France), represented
by Mr Xavier Buffet Delmas d'Autane.

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

a) set aside the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16
March 2005 in Case T-112/03 in its entirety and annul the
decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 15
January 2003 regarding the appeal No R0396/2001-4
relating to the opposition proceedings No B 215048 (Com-
munity application No 1011576);

b) order the OHIM to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance infringed
Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (2), and did not draw the

(1) OJ C 132, 28.05.2005, p. 25.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark, OJ L 11, 14.01.1994, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Supremo (Spain) by order of that court of 13 April 2005
in the case of Asnef-Equifax Servicios de Información
sobre Solvencia y Crédito, S.L. and Administración del
Estado v Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios
(AUSBANC)

(Case C-238/05)

(2005/C 205/14)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)
of 13 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 30 May
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Asnef-Equifax Servicios de Información sobre Solvencia y
Crédito, S.L. and Administración del Estado and Asociación de
Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (AUSBANC) on the following
questions:

C 205/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.8.2005

A) Is it possible to interpret Article 81(1) EC as meaning that
agreements between financial institutions for the exchange
of information about the solvency of their customers and
lateness of payments by them may be regarded as compa-
tible with the common market, in so far as they affect the
financial policies of the European Union and the common
credit market and have the effect of restricting competition
in the financial and credit institution sector?

B) Is it possible to interpret Article 81(3) EC as meaning that a
Member State may, by means of bodies responsible for
agreements between
overseeing competition,
financial institutions for the exchange of information about
their customers through the establishment of a credit infor-
mation register,
in so far as the creation of that register
produces benefits for consumers and users of those finan-
cial services?

authorise

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
te 's-Hertogenbosch by order of that court of 31 May
2005 in G.M. van de Coevering v Rijksbelastingdienst

(Case C-242/05)

(2005/C 205/15)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogen-
bosch ('s-Hertogenbosch Regional Court of Appeal) of 31 May
2005, received at the Court Registry on 3 June 2005, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings between G.M. van de
Coevering and Roermond Customs District of the Rijksbelas-
tingdienst on the following question:

Does Community law,
in particular the freedom to provide
services as set out in Articles 49 EC to 55 EC, preclude the
Netherlands from charging a natural person resident in the
Netherlands — who leases in another Member State, under a
leasing contract with a lessor, a passenger car which is not
registered in the register pursuant to the Wegenverkeerswet
1994 and on which no passenger car and motorcycle tax
the Wet BPM (1) has been paid —
under Article 1(2) of
passenger car and motorcycle tax under Article 1(5) of the Wet
BPM on commencement of use in the Netherlands by that

the highway within the meaning of

passenger car of
the
Wegenverkeerswet 1994, where the full amount of the tax is
chargeable irrespective of the period of the lease and the dura-
tion of the use of the highway in the Netherlands and where
that natural person has no right at all to an exemption or a
refund?

(1) 1992 Law on passenger car and motorcycle tax.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Bavarian Higher Administrative
Court) by order of that court of 19 April 2005 in Bund
Naturschutz in Bayern e.V. v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-244/05)

(2005/C 205/16)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bayerischer Verwaltungsger-
ichtshof (Bavarian Higher Administrative Court) of 19 April
2005, received at the Court Registry on 19 April 2005, for a
preliminary
between Bund
Naturschutz in Bayern e.V. and Freistaat Bayern on the
following question:

proceedings

ruling

the

in

1. What protection regime is required under Article 3(1) of
Directive 92/43 EEC (1) in conjunction with the sixth recital
in the preamble to that Directive in the light of the prohibi-
tion on frustrating the objectives of the Treaty laid down in
Article 10(2) of the EC Treaty (Treaty establishing the Euro-
pean Community of 25 March 1957, as most recently
amended by the 2003 EU Treaty of Accession of 16 April
2003) and following the judgment of the European Court of
Justice of 13 January 2005 in Case C-117/03 for sites which
could be designated sites of Community importance, parti-
cularly those with priority natural habitat
types and/or
priority species, before they appear on the list of sites of
Community importance adopted by the Commission of the
European Communities under the procedure provided for in
Article 21 of the Directive?