Case C-87/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 lodged on  14 February 2006  — Vicente Pascual García v Confederación Hidrográfica del Duero
Date: 2006-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, age discrimination, collective agreement, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, pension scheme, retirement conditions

C 121/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2006

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud
pro Prahu 3 lodged on 7 February 2006 — Český Telecom
a.s. v Czech On Line a.s.

(Case C-64/06)

(2006/C 121/03)

Language of the case: Czech

4. To the extent that during the crucial period — from 1 May
2004 to 30 April 2005 — the Czech Republic had not
sufficiently implemented the above-mentioned directives, is
to apply Directive 2002/21/EC
it possible
(Framework Directive) and Directive 2002/19/EC of
the
European Parliament and of the Council (Access Directive),
thus

directly

4a. are these directives (or is one of them) unconditional
and sufficiently precise to be applied (by a court) in the
place of national law?

Referring court

Obvodní soud pro Prahu 3 (Prague 3 District Court)

4b.

in the

telecommunications market

(dominant) market
is an operator with significant
power
entitled
(actively subjectively legitimised) to rely, as a result of
the incorrect
transposition of Directives 2002/19/EC
and 2002/21/EC, on their direct effectiveness, having
regard to the question whether those directives (or one
of them) do in any case protect the interests of that
person who refuses to conclude an agreement on inter-
connection (in the area of ADSL service) with other
domestic telecommunications operators (and who in
the view of the national telecommunications regulator,
which the court must also take into account, thus acts
contrary to the aims of the new regulatory framework)?

4c. Can that operator invoke the direct effectiveness of
directives that have not been properly implemented (or
of one of them), if (even where the conditions intro-
in the decision-
duced in the directives are fulfilled)
making process of
telecommunications
the national
regulator decisions are always made about the concrete
conditions for interconnection of operators' sites, i.e. it
concerns the imposition of concrete duties on indivi-
duals?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo
Social No 3 lodged on 14 February 2006 — Vicente
Pascual García v Confederación Hidrográfica del Duero

(Case C-87/06)

(2006/C 121/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 3

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Český Telecom a.s.

Defendant: Czech On Line a.s.

Questions referred

1. Was the national telecommunications regulator (Czech Tele-
communications Office) entitled, in the form of an adminis-
trative decision after 1 May 2004, and thus after the day of
the Czech Republic's accession to the European Commu-
nities, to impose on a telecommunications company with
significant (dominant) market power in the telecommunica-
tions market an obligation to conclude a contract on the
interconnection of its network with another operator?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

Was the national regulator entitled to act in that way only
under the conditions laid down in Article 8(2) of Directive
2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
(Access Directive), i.e. on the strength of a previous market
analysis carried out in accordance with Article 16 of Direc-
tive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) and on the basis of
the previous procedure described in Articles 6 and 7 of the
Framework Directive 2002/21/EC

or could it (for example in accordance with recital 15,
Article 3, Article 4(1), Article 5(1)(a) and (4), Article 10(1)
and (2) of
in that way even
without a previous market analysis?

the Access Directive) act

3. Can it have an impact on the answer to Question 2 that the
application of a particular operator for the issuing of a deci-
sion on the compulsory interconnection of his network
with the network of an operator with significant (dominant)
market power was lodged with the national regulator, and
the decisive part of the proceedings on that application
before it took place, before 1 May 2004, i.e. before the day
on which the Czech Republic acceded to the European
Communities?

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/3

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vicente Pascual García

Defendant: Confederación Hidrográfica del Duero

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings: Sodipan SCA, intervener

Form of order sought

Questions referred

— Set aside the judgment under appeal.

1. Does the principle of equal treatment, which prohibits any
discrimination whatsoever on grounds of age, laid down in
Article 13 of the Treaty and Article 2 (1) of Directive
2000/78 (1), preclude a national
law (specifically the first
paragraph of
the Single Transitional Provision of Law
14/2005 on clauses in collective agreements concerning the
attainment of normal retirement age), pursuant to which
compulsory retirement clauses contained in collective agree-
ments are lawful, where such clauses provide as sole
requirements that workers should have reached normal
retirement age and have satisfied the conditions set out in
the social security legislation of the Spanish State for entitle-
ment to draw a retirement pension under their contribution
regime, whereas, for future agreements to be able to provide
for termination of the contract on grounds of age,
the
undertaking must also link such termination to an employ-
ment policy?

2. Does the principle of equal treatment, which prohibits any
discrimination whatsoever on grounds of age, laid down in
Article 13 of the Treaty and Article 2 (1) of Directive
2000/78, require this Court, as a national court, not to
apply to this case the first paragraph of the Single Transi-
tional Provision of Law 14/2005?

— Grant the forms of order sought by the appellant in the
proceedings at first instance and annul the decision of the
OHIM First Board of Appeal of 16 July 2004 in Case
R0699/2003-1.

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the judgment under appeal was given
contrary to Article 8(1)(b) and (2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No
40/94 (1), which provides that ‘… the trade mark applied for
shall not be registered if because of its identity with or simi-
larity to the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of
the goods or services covered by the trade marks there exists a
likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory
in which the earlier trade mark is protected …’. The court has
in fact misapplied the concept of the likelihood of confusion,
as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities.

According to the appellant, the trade marks which are the
subject of the present dispute are not likely to be confused with
each other in view of the clear phonetic, visual, graphic and
conceptual differences.

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a
general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupa-
tion (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

(1) OJ L 11, 14/01/1994, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 10 February 2006 by Soffass SpA
against the judgment delivered on 23 November 2005 in
Case T-396/04 Soffass SpA v Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (OHIM)

Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-92/06 P)

(2006/C 121/05)

Language of the case: Italian

(Case C-108/06)

(2006/C 121/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: H. van Vliet and F. Simonetti, as Agents)

Appellant: Soffass SpA (represented by: V. Bilardo, C. Bacchini
and M. Mazzitelli, Avvocati)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands