Case C-169/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on  29 March 2006  — The Queen on the application of Northern Foods Plc v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Interested Party: The Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association
Date: 2006-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: designation of origin, interpretation of the law, location of production

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/9

— order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Title IX of the Directive lays down the obligations of Member
States regarding the preparation and implementation of inter-
vention in cases of radiological emergency. Article 53 provides
that Member States are responsible for intervention in cases of
lasting exposure.

The United Kingdom authorities have acknowledged that their
existing legislation fails to effect complete transposition of the
directive, in so far as it does not provide for measures in all
cases where a situation of radioactive contamination is identi-
fied. The complaint which provided the impetus for the present
procedure exposed the fact that it is not possible to identify
and to take measures against lasting exposure for past activities
for which a licence had never been issued, intervention only
being possible where exposure can be linked to a given past
activity carried out on land where possible radioactive contami-
nation is now being identified.

(1) OJ L 314 , 4.12.1996, p. 20.

the Republic of Hungary,

the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic
of Lithuania,
the Republic of
Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and
the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on
which the European Union is founded, on the basis of
which the Czech Republic became a Member State of the
European Union from 1 May 2004, be interpreted as
meaning that a Member State may apply against an indivi-
dual a regulation which at the time of its application has
not been properly published in the Official Journal in the
official language of that Member State?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative, is the unenforce-
ability of the regulation concerned against an individual a
question of the interpretation or of the validity of Com-
munity law within the meaning of Article 234 of the Treaty
establishing the European Community?

3. Should the Court of Justice conclude that the present refer-
ence for a preliminary ruling concerns the validity of a
Community act within the meaning of the judgment in Case
is Regulation No
[1987] ECR 4199,
314/85 Foto-Frost
2454/93 invalid in relation to the applicant and its dispute
with the customs authorities of the Czech Republic on the
ground of the absence of proper publication in the Official
Journal of the EU in accordance with Article 58 of the Act
concerning the conditions of accession?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud
v Ostravě lodged on 24 March 2006 — Skoma-Lux, s.r.o. v
Celní ředitelství Olomouc

(Case C-161/06)

(2006/C 121/15)

Language of the case: Czech

Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Court of
Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on 29
March 2006 — The Queen on the application of Northern
Foods Plc v The Secretary of State for the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs

Interested Party: The Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Associa-
tion

Referring court

Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skoma-Lux, s.r.o.

Defendant: Celní ředitelství Olomouc

(Case C-169/06)

(2006/C 121/16)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales)

Questions referred

Parties to the main proceedings

1. May Article 58 of the Act concerning the conditions of
accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia,

Applicant: The Queen on the application of Northern Foods Plc,

C 121/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2006

Defendant: The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs

Interested Party: The Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association

Questions referred

Where the specification in an application for a protected
geographical
indication (PGI) in respect of ‘Melton Mowbray
Pork Pies’ made pursuant to Council Regulation 2081/92/EEC
on the protection of geographical indications and designations
of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (‘the Regu-
to
lation’) defines the relevant geographical area pursuant
Article 4(2)(c) of the Regulation as

the town of Melton Mowbray and its surrounding region
bounded as follows:

— to the North by the A52 from the M1 and the A1 and

including the city of Nottingham;

— to the East by the A1 from the A52 to the A45 and

including the towns of Grantham and Stamford;

— to the West by the M1 from the A52 and the A45; and

— to the South by the A45 from the M1 and the A1 and

including the town of Northampton

1. are the requirements of Article 2(2)(b) of the Regulation
capable of being satisfied insofar as the proposed PGI would
apply to products produced and/or processed and/or
prepared in places other than that whose name appears in
the PGI;

2.

if so, what criteria must be applied in delimiting the defined
geographical area referred to in Articles 2(2)(b) and 4(2)(c)
of the Regulation?

Appeal brought on 31 March 2006 by T.I.M.E. ART Ulus-
lararasi Saat Ticareti ve dis Ticaret A.S. against the judg-
ment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber)
delivered on 12 January 2006 in Case T-147/03: Devinlec
Développement
Innovation Leclerc SA v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM), T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti
ve Ticaret AS

(Case C-171/06 P)

(2006/C 121/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve dis Ticaret
A.S. (represented by: M. Francetti and F. Jacobacci, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Devinlec Développement Innova-
tion Leclerc SA, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM)

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

— reverse the judgment issued on 12 January 2006 by the
Instance in Case T-147/03, because it

Court of First
breaches article 8(1)(b) of EC Regulation No 40/94 (1);

— admit the conclusions submitted by T.I.M.E during the first-

level judgment in its brief dated 28 October 2003.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance should be set aside on the grounds that the Court
infringed and misapplied article 8(1)(b) of EC Regulation No
40/94 by:

— Failing to take account of the distinctive strength of the
earlier trademark (‘QUANTIEME’), an essential element that
must be taken into account when assessing likelihood of
confusion;

— Concluding that,

the conceptual distance
between the two marks, there is still a risk of confusion in
view of their phonetic and visual similarities.

in spite of

(1) JO L 011, p.1