Case C-59/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  23 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof) — Siemens AG v Gesellschaft für Visualisierung und Prozeßautomatisierung mbH (VIPA) (Approximation of laws — Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC — Comparative advertising — Taking unfair advantage of the reputation of a distinguishing mark of a competitor)
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, advertising malpractice, comparative advertising, competition law, interpretation of the law

C 131/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 February
2006 — Commission of the European Communities v
Ireland

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 February
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
gerichtshof) — Siemens AG v Gesellschaft für Visuali-
sierung und Prozeßautomatisierung mbH (VIPA)

(Case C-46/05) (1)

(Case C-59/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2000/79/EC — Working conditions — Organisation of
working time — Mobile workers in civil aviation — Failure
to transpose within the prescribed period)

laws — Directives 84/450/EEC and
(Approximation of
97/55/EC — Comparative advertising — Taking unfair
advantage of the reputation of a distinguishing mark of a
competitor)

(2006/C 131/42)

Language of the case: English

(2006/C 131/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: N. Yerrell, Agent)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent)

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Siemens AG

Re:

Defendant: VIPA Gesellschaft für Visualisierung und Prozeßauto-
matisierung mbH

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
transpose, within the prescribed period, Council Directive
2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 concerning the European
Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile
Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the Association of
European Airlines (AEA),
the European Transport Workers'
Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the
European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the Interna-
tional Air Carrier Association (IACA) (OJ 2000 L 302, p. 57)

Operative part of the judgment

1. By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provi-
sions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/79/EC of
27 November 2000 concerning the European Agreement on the
Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Avia-
tion concluded by the Association of European Airlines (AEA),
the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF), the European
Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Asso-
ciation (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association
(IACA), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that direc-
tive;

2. Ireland is ordered to pay the costs.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof —
Interpretation of Article 3a(1)(g) of Council Directive
84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approxima-
tion of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of
the Member States concerning misleading advertising (OJ 1984
L 250, p. 17), as inserted by Directive 97/55/EC of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 (OJ
1997 L 290, p. 18) — Comparative advertising — Products
sold under reference to what are essentially the product order
numbers of a competitor

Operative part of the judgment

advertising,

Article 3a(1)(g) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September
1984 concerning misleading and comparative
as
amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 6 October 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that,
in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, by using in
its catalogues the core element of a manufacturer's distinguishing
mark which is known in specialist circles, a competing supplier does
not take unfair advantage of the reputation of that distinguishing
mark.

(1) OJ C 93, 16.04.2005.

(1) OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.