Case C-421/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  9 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona) — Matratzen Concord AG v Hukla Germany SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 89/104/EEC — Grounds for refusal to register — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Free movement of goods — Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction — Justification — Protection of industrial and commercial property — National word mark registered in a Member State — Trade mark consisting of a term borrowed from the language of another Member State in which it is devoid of distinctive character and/or descriptive of the goods in respect of which the trade mark was registered)
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, Spain, furniture industry, interpretation of the law, textile industry, trade restriction, trade-mark law

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/17

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 March 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom
of Spain

of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11,
the
Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
directive;

(Case C-332/04) (1)

2. The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to pay the costs.

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Direc-
tive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC —
Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment —
Inter-action between factors likely to be directly and indir-
ectly affected — Obligation to publish the impact statement
— Assessment limited to urban development projects outside
urban areas — Construction project for a leisure complex at
Paterna)

(1) OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.

(2006/C 131/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia
Provincial de Barcelona) — Matratzen Concord AG v
Hukla Germany SA

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Valero Jordana and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Perez,
acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Incom-
plete/incorrect
transposition of Arts. 3, 9(1) and Paragraph
10(b) of Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June
1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as
amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ
1997 L 73, p. 5) — Failure to apply the transitional scheme
established by Article 3 of Directive 97/11/EC — Failure to
have submitted a construction project for a leisure complex at
Paterna (Valencia) for an assessment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to fully transpose Article 3 of Council
Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as
amended by Council Directive 97/11, by failing to transpose
Article 9(1) of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive
97/11, by failing to comply with the transitional scheme provided
for by Article 3 of Directive 97/11, by failing to correctly trans-
pose the combined provisions of Paragraph 10(b) of Annex II and
Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Directive 85/337, as amended by
Directive 97/11, and by failing to submit the construction project
for a leisure complex at Paterna to the procedure for the assess-
ment of
the effects on the environment and, consequently, by
failing to apply the provisions of Articles 2(1), 3, 4(2), 8 and 9

(Case C-421/04) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 3(1)(b) and (c)
of Directive 89/104/EEC — Grounds for refusal to register
— Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Free movement of goods —
Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction
— Justification — Protection of industrial and commercial
property — National word mark registered in a Member
State — Trade mark consisting of a term borrowed from the
language of another Member State in which it is devoid of
distinctive character and/or descriptive of the goods in respect
of which the trade mark was registered)

(2006/C 131/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Matratzen Concord AG

Defendant: Hukla Germany SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de
Barcelona — Interpretation of Article 30 EC — Protection of
industrial and commercial property — Disguised restriction in
trade between Member States resulting from a national word
mark composed of a word which, in the language of another
Member State,
the products concerned
(‘matratzen’)

is descriptive of

C 131/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21
the Member States
December 1988 to approximate the laws of
relating to trade marks does not preclude the registration in a
Member State, as a national trade mark, of a term borrowed from the
language of another Member State in which it is devoid of distinctive
character or descriptive of the goods or services in respect of which
registration is sought, unless the relevant parties in the Member State
in which registration is sought are capable of identifying the meaning
of the term.

(1) OJ C 300, 04.12.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Cassatie van België) — Criminal proceedings against
Léopold Henri van Esbroeck

(Case C-436/04) (1)

(Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Arti-
cles 54 and 71 — Ne bis in idem principle — Application
ratione temporis — Concept of ‘the same acts’ — Import and
to legal proceedings in
export of narcotic drugs subject

different Contracting States)

(2006/C 131/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Party in the main proceedings

Léopold Henri van Esbroeck

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van
België — Interpretation of Arts. 54 and 71 of the Convention
implementing the Schengen Agreement — Ne bis in idem prin-
ciple — Person prosecuted in a Member State for illegally
exporting drugs after having been prosecuted and convicted in
Norway for illegal importing drugs before the Schengen Agree-
ment was applicable to that State

Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French
Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at
their common
borders, signed on 19 June 1990 in Schengen, must be applied to
criminal proceedings brought in a Contracting State for acts for
which a person has already been convicted in another Contracting
State even though the Convention was not yet in force in the latter
State at the time at which that person was convicted, in so far as
the Convention was in force in the Contracting States in question
at the time of the assessment, by the court before which the second
proceedings were brought, of the conditions of applicability of the
ne bis in idem principle.

2. Article 54 of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning that:

— the relevant criterion for the purposes of the application of that
article is identity of the material acts, understood as the exis-
tence of a set of facts which are inextricably linked together,
irrespective of the legal classification given to them or the legal
interest protected;

— punishable acts consisting of exporting and importing the
same narcotic drugs and which are prosecuted in different
Contracting States to the Convention are, in principle, to be
regarded as ‘the same acts’ for the purposes of Article 54, the
definitive assessment
the
competent national courts.

in that respect being the task of

(1) OJ C 300 of 4.12.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 February
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landes-
gericht Klagenfurt) — A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH v
Claudia Schmidt

(Case C-441/04) (1)

(Free movement of goods — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC —
Measures having equivalent effect — Doorstep selling —
Sale of silver jewellery — Prohibition)

(2006/C 131/32)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Austria)

Operative part of the judgment

Parties to the main proceedings

1. The ne bis in idem principle, enshrined in Article 54 of

the
Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June
the Benelux
1985 between the Governments of

the States of

Applicant: A-Punkt Schmuckhandels GmbH

Defendant: Claudia Schmidt