Case C-431/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça by order of that court of  3 November 2005  in Merck Genéricos-Produtos Farmacêuticos, L.da v Merck & Co. Inc and Merck Sharp & Dohme, L.da
Date: 2006-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: TRIPS, application of the law, interpretation of the law

C 36/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.2.2006

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg by order of that court of 21 November 2005 in
Firma Laub GmbH & Co. Vieh & Fleisch Import-Export v
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-428/05)

(2006/C 36/44)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Hamburg
(Germany) of 21 November 2005,
the Court
Registry on 2 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Firma Laub GmbH & Co. Vieh & Fleisch
Import-Export
and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the
following question:

received at

first

Is a refund within the meaning of Article 11(3), subparagraph
1,
sentence, of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
3665/87 (1) unduly paid and thus to be reimbursed, where the
beneficiary presents the documents supporting payment only
in the course of the procedure for repayment and after expiry
of the time-limits set out in Articles 47(2) and 48(2)(a) of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87?

(1) OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1 (amended, OJ 1997 L 77, p. 12).

Godard) and Franfinance SA and K par K SAS on the following
questions:

1. Are Articles 11 and 14 of Council Directive 87/102/EEC of
22 December 1986 (1) to be interpreted as allowing courts
to apply the rules on interdependence between a credit
agreement and a contract for the supply of goods or services
that is financed by that credit in cases where the credit
agreement does not refer to the goods being financed or has
been concluded in the form of a credit facility without refer-
ence to the goods being financed?

2. Does Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986
have an objective which extends beyond consumer protec-
tion alone to the organisation of the market and allows
courts to apply of their own motion the provisions which
flow from it?

(1) Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for

the
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provi-
sions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987 L
42, p. 48).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo
Tribunal de Justiça by order of that court of 3 November
2005 in Merck Genéricos-Produtos Farmacêuticos, L.da v
Merck & Co. Inc and Merck Sharp & Dohme, L.da

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal d'in-
stance de Saintes by judgment of
that court of 16
November 2005 in Max Rampion and Marie-Jeanne
Rampion (née Godard) v Franfinance SA and K par K SAS

(Case C-429/05)

(2006/C 36/45)

(Language of the case: French)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of the tribunal d'instance de
Saintes of 16 November 2005, received at the Court Registry
on 2 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
ings between Max Rampion and Marie-Jeanne Rampion (née

(Case C-431/05)

(2006/C 36/46)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça
of 3 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 5
December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Merck Genéricos-Produtos Farmacêuticos, L.da and
Merck & Co. Inc and Merck Sharp & Dohme, L.da on the
following questions:

1. Does the Court of Justice of the European Communities
have jurisdiction to interpret Article 33 of the TRIPs Agree-
ment (1)?

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/23

2. In the event of an affirmative answer to the first question,
must national courts apply that article, on their own initia-
tive or at the request of a party,
in proceedings pending
before them?

Community law may be disapplied in relation to an indivi-
dual so that he is able to exercise that right until the ques-
tion of the existence of the right has been finally settled by
a national court?

(1) Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights,
Annex 1C to the World Trade Organisation Agreement, approved
on behalf of the Community, with regard to matters within its
competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994
(OJ L 336 , 23.12.1994 p. 1).

3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative:

Does it
follow from Community law that, where the
compatibility of national provisions with Community law is
being challenged, in its substantive examination of an appli-
cation for interim protection of rights under Community
law a national court must apply national provisions
governing the conditions for interim protection, or in such
a situation must the national court apply Community law
criteria for interim protection?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
Domstolen by order of that court of 24 November 2005
in Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd v Justi-
tiekanslern

4. If the answer to Question 3 is that Community law criteria

must be applied, what are those criteria?

(Case C-432/05)

(2006/C 36/47)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Högsta Domstolen of 24
November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 5 December
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd and Justitiekan-
slern on the following questions:

1. Is the requirement of Community law that national proce-
dural rules must provide effective protection of an indivi-
dual's rights under Community law to be interpreted as
meaning that an action for a declaration that certain
national substantive provisions conflict with Article 49 of
the EC Treaty must be permitted to be brought in a case
where the compatibility of the substantive provisions with
that article may otherwise be examined only as a preli-
for example, an action for damages,
minary issue in,
the national
proceedings
substantive provisions or judicial review proceedings?

infringement of

concerning

2. Does the requirement of effective legal protection under
Community law mean that the national
legal order must
provide interim protection, through which national rules
which prevent the exercise of an alleged right based on

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handens
Tingsrätt by order of that court of 21 November 2005 in
Åklagaren v Lars Sandström

(Case C-433/05)

(2006/C 36/48)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Handens Tingsrätt (Sweden)
of 21 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 5
December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Åklagaren and Lars Sandström on the following ques-
tions:

1.

(a) Does Directive 2003/44/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council amending Directive 94/25/EC on the
approximation of the laws, regulations and administra-
tive provisions of the Member States relating to recrea-
tional craft preclude national provisions prohibiting the
use of jet-skis in places other than general waterways
and waters for which the local authorities give permis-
sion in accordance with Paragraph 3(1) of the jet-ski
regulations (1993:1053, as amended by 2004:607)