Case C-207/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Salzburg-Aigen (Austria) lodged on 8 May 2006 — Schwaninger Martin, Viehhandel — Viehexport v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen
Date: 2006-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal welfare, cattle, export refund, health certificate, interpretation of the law, maritime transport, organisation of transport, transport of animals

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/7

Operative part of the judgment

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
ensure the complete transposition of Directive 2001/19/EC of the
the Council of 14 May 2001
European Parliament and of
amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the
general system for the recognition of professional qualifications
and
77/453/EEC,
78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC,
85/432/EEC,
80/154/EEC,
85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse
responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon,
midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor, the Federal Republic of
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

80/155/EEC,

85/384/EEC,

77/452/EEC,

Directives

Council

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 205, 20.08.2005.

Appeal brought on 26 April 2006 by Alecansan SL against
Instance (First
the judgment of
Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2006 in Case T-202/03:
Alecansan SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM)

the Court of First

(Case C-196/06 P)

(2006/C 190/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Alecansan SL (represented by: P. Merino Baylos and
A. Velázquez Ibáñez, abogados)

found that

The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in
its interpretation of article 8.1.b) of Regulations No 40/94 (1)
when it
there was no likelihood of confusion
between the two marks on the grounds that, despite the high
degree of similarity from a phonetic and a visual point of view,
the goods and services of the trade mark applied for are not
similar to the services covered by the appellant's mark. The
appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance failed to
take account of several important factors when determining the
existence of the likelihood of confusion.

(1) OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p.1

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger
Finanzsenat Salzburg-Aigen (Austria)
lodged on 8 May
2006 — Schwaninger Martin, Viehhandel — Viehexport v
Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen

(Case C-207/06)

(2006/C 190/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Salzburg-Aigen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Martin Schwaninger, Viehhandel — Viehexport

Defendant: Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market, CompUSA Management Co.

Questions referred

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

the Court of First

the First Chamber of

— annul the judgment of 7 February 2006 (Case T-2002/03)
of
Instance
dismissing the action for annulment filed against the Reso-
lution dated 24 March 2003 of the First Appeal Chamber
of the Office for Harmonisation of the Internal Market
(OHIM) in case R-711/2002-1, dismissing the opposition
filed by Alecansan SL against community trade mark appli-
cation No 849.497 ‘COMPUSA’.

1. Is Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 (1) of
18 March 1998 to be understood as meaning that Chapter
VII 48 point 7(b) of the annex to Directive 91/628/EEC (2)
of 19 November 1991 applies analogously in the case of
transport by sea on a regular and direct link between a
geographical point of the Community and a geographical
point in a third country by means of vehicles loaded on to
vessels without unloading of the animals?

2. If question one is answered in the affirmative, is Chapter VII
48 point 7(b) of the annex to Directive 91/628/EEC to be
in the case of transport of
understood as meaning that,
bovine animals, the journey time by sea does not comply
with the rule in point 4(d) if, after 14 hours of travel, the
animals are not given a rest period of at least one hour?

C 190/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.8.2006

3. If question one is answered in the negative,

is the then
applicable provision in Chapter VII 48 point 7(a) of the
annex to Directive 91/628/EEC to be understood as
meaning that the journey time by sea on a regular and
direct link between a geographical point of the Community
and a geographical point in a third country by means of
vehicles loaded on to vessels without unloading of
the
animals is immaterial provided that the animals are regularly
fed and watered and, in such a case, does a further period of
29 hours of
transport by road begin immediately after
unloading the lorry at the port of destination?

4. If question three (point 2.3) is answered in the affirmative,
is the first indent of Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of Directive
91/628/EEC to be understood as meaning that the staff in
charge of the transport are required to state in the route
plan the times at which the animals transported were fed
and watered during the ferry journey and that a pre-typed
statement indicating that 'during the ferry journey, animals
are fed and watered in the evenings and mornings, at
midday, and in the evenings and mornings' does not meet
the requirements of Directive 91/628/EEC, with the effect in
law that the failure to sate the measures actually taken to
care for the animals leads to a loss of the right to an export
refund in so far as the proof required cannot by provided
by any other means?

(1) OJ 1998 L 82, p. 19.
(2) OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17.

Questions referred

1. Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 November
1970 (1)
to the Agreement establishing an Association
between the European Economic Community and Turkey to
be interpreted in such a way that it constitutes a restriction
on freedom to provide services if a Turkish national who
works in international transport for a Turkish undertaking
as a driver of a lorry registered in Germany has to be in
possession of a Schengen visa to enter Germany under Para-
graph 4(1) and Paragraph 6 of
the Aufenthaltsgesetz
(German law on residence) of 30 July 2004 and Article 1(1)
of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (2) even though on the
date on which the Additional Protocol entered into force he
was permitted to enter the Federal Republic of Germany
without a visa?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
should Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol be inter-
preted as meaning that the Turkish nationals mentioned in
(1) do not require a visa to enter Germany?

(1) JO 1972 L 293, p.4.
(2) OJ 2001 L 81, p.1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwal-
tungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg lodged on 19 May 2006
— Mehmet Soysal, Cengiz Salkim,
Ibrahim Savatli v
Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Joined party: Bundesagentur
für Arbeit

(Case C-228/06)

(2006/C 190/13)

Language of the case: German

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg (Germany), lodged on 22 May 2006 — Sunshine
Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Kiel

(Case C-229/06)

(2006/C 190/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Mehmet Soysal, Cengiz Salkim, Ibrahim Savatli

Parties to the main proceedings

Respondent: Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of
Germany)

Applicant: Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH

Joined party: Bundesagentur für Arbeit
Germany)

(Federal Republic of

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Kiel