Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 September 2005 in Case C-303/04 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Voghera): Lidl Italia Srl v Comune di Stradella (Technical standards and regulations — Directive 98/34/EC — Concept of ‘technical regulation’ — Non-biodegradable cotton buds)
Date: 2005-11-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, free movement of goods, interpretation of the law, marketing standard, technical standard, toiletries

C 281/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.11.2005

Terminals NV and Belgische Staat, United Antwerp Maritime
Agencies NV — the Court (First Chamber) composed of P.
Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodri-
gues (Rapporteur), E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; D. Ruiz-
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General, M. Ferreira, Principal
administrator,
for the, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15
September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

The fourth indent of Article 203(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No
2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs
Code must be interpreted as meaning that ‘the person required to fulfil
the obligations arising from temporary storage of the goods’ is the
person who holds the goods after they have been unloaded in order to
move or store them.

(1) OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 8 September 2005

in Case C-303/04 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale di Voghera): Lidl Italia Srl v Comune di Stra-
della (1)

(Technical standards and regulations — Directive 98/34/EC
— Concept of ‘technical regulation’ — Non-biodegradable
cotton buds)

(2005/C 281/08)

(Language of the case: Italian)

93 of 23 March 2001 on the environment constitutes a technical
regulation to the extent to which it includes a prohibition on the
marketing of cotton buds which are not manufactured from biode-
gradable materials in accordance with a national standard.

2. The first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34, as
amended by Directive 98/48, must be interpreted as meaning that
a national provision which constitutes a technical regulation, such
as Article 19 of Law No 93 of 23 March 2001, must be notified
to the Commission of the European Communities prior to its
adoption.

3. The first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34, as
amended by Directive 98/48, must be interpreted as meaning that
the national courts may refuse to apply a national legal provision
constituting a technical regulation, such as Article 19 of Law No
93/2001 of 23 March 2001, if it has not been notified to the
Commission of the European Communities prior to its adoption.

(1) OJ C 228 of 11.09.2004.

Appeal brought on 28 July 2005 (Fax: 27 July 2005) by
Hans-Peter Wilfer against the judgment delivered on 8
June 2005 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-315/03
Hans-Peter Wilfer v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-301/05 P)

(2005/C 281/09)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-303/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Tribunale di Voghera (District Court
of Voghera) (Italy), made by decision of 1 July 2004, received
at the Court on 16 July 2004, in the proceedings between Lidl
Italia Srl and Comune di Stradella — the Court
(Fifth
Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the
Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and J. Klučka, Judges; J.
Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment
on 8 September 2005,
the operative part of which is as
follows:

1. Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for
the provision of information in the field of technical standards and
rules on Information Society services, as
regulations and of
amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 20 July 1998, must be interpreted as meaning
that a national legislative provision such as Article 19 of Law No

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 June 2005 by
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities in Case T-315/03 between Hans-Peter Wilfer
and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs)(OHIM) was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 28 July 2005 by Hans-Peter
Wilfer,
lawyer, of Kanzlei
Meissner, Bolte & Partner, Widenmayerstraße 48, D-80538
Munich, Germany.

represented by A. Kockläuner,

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1. set aside, in its entirety, paragraph 1 of the operative part of
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005
in Case T-315/03 (1) under appeal, and set aside paragraphs
2 and 3 of the operative part, in so far as to order OHIM to
pay all of its own costs and those incurred by the applicant;