Case C-270/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos by decision of that court of 9 June 2005 in Athinaiki Khartopiia A.E. v L. Panagiotidis and Others
Date: 2005-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: collective dismissal, interpretation of the law, worker consultation, worker information

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/29

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos
by decision of that court of 9 June 2005 in Athinaiki Khar-
topiia A.E. v L. Panagiotidis and Others

(Case C-270/05)

(2005/C 217/56)

(Language of the case: Greek)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of the Arios Pagos (Supreme
Court of Cassation) of 9 June 2005, received at the Court
Registry on 1 July 2005,
for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Athinaiki Khartopiia A.E. and L. Panagio-
tidis and Others on the following question:

Does the operating unit whose staff were made collectively
redundant by the employer in derogation from the procedures
for informing and consulting with the workers' representatives
which are envisaged in Article 1(2)(d) of Directive 75/129,
Article 2(4) of Directive 92/56 and Article 4(4) of Directive
98/59 fall within the meaning of the Community term ‘estab-
lishment’, for the purpose of applying the Council directives
referred to in the grounds of this decision and Law 1387/1983
concerning ‘control of collective redundancies and other provi-
sions’?

Article 71 thereof, be construed as meaning that offences of
possession for the purposes of export and import in respect
of the same narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and
which are prosecuted as exports and imports respectively in
different countries which have signed the Convention imple-
menting the Schengen Agreement, are deemed to be the
“same acts”, as referred to in Article 54 of that Convention?’

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
Gerichtshof by order of that court of 24 May 2005 in The
Wellcome Foundation Ltd. v Paranova Pharmazeutika
Handels GmbH

(Case C-276/05)

(2005/C 217/58)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Beroep, Antwerp by judgment of that court of 30 June
2005 in 1. …, 2. … and 3. Bowens, Werner Constant Maria

(Case C-272/05)

(2005/C 217/57)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
the Hof van Beroep,
pean Communities by judgment of
Antwerp of 30 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 5
July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
1. …, 2. … and 3. Bowens, Werner Constant Maria on the
following question:

1.

‘Must Article 54 of the Convention of 19 June 1990 imple-
menting the Schengen Agreement, read in conjunction with

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of
the Oberster Gerichtshof
(Supreme Court, Austria) of 24 May 2005, received at the
Court Registry on 6 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between The Wellcome Foundation Ltd. and Para-
nova Pharmazeutika Handels GmbH on the following ques-
tions:

1. a. Are Article 7 of the Trade Marks Directive [First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approxi-
mate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
marks] (1) and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the
European Communities which has been pronounced on
it to be interpreted as meaning that proof that reliance
on the trade mark would contribute to an artificial parti-
tioning of the market must be furnished not only as
regards the repackaging in itself, but also as regards the
presentation of the new packaging?

If the answer to this question is in the negative:

b. Is the presentation of the new packaging to be measured
against the principle of minimum intervention or (only)
against whether it is such as to damage the reputation of
the trade mark and its proprietor?