Case C-221/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Sam Mc Cauley Chemists (Blackpool) Ltd, Mark Sadja v Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, Minister for Health and Children, Ireland, Attorney General (Directive 85/433/EEC — Mutual recognition of diplomas — Pharmacists — Recognition of diplomas held by pharmacists working in new pharmacies open to the public — Scope of the discretion enjoyed by Member States)
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, pharmacology, provision of services, recognition of diplomas, right of establishment

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/13

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that, by altering the demarcation of the ‘Moura, Mourão,
Barrancos’ Special Protection Area, thereby excluding from it areas
providing a habitat for species of wild birds for whose protection
that area was designated, the Portuguese Republic has failed to
fulfil
its obligations under Article 4(1) of Council Directive
79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.

Division refusing to register as a Community word mark ‘SISSI
ROSSI’ in respect of goods in classes 14, 15, 5 and 26

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Sergio Rossi SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2006 —
Sergio Rossi SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sissi
Rossi Srl

(Case C-214/05 P) (1)

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme
Court — Ireland) — Sam Mc Cauley Chemists (Blackpool)
Ltd, Mark Sadja v Pharmaceutical Society of
Ireland,
Ireland, Attorney
for Health and Children,
Minister

General

(Case C-221/05) (1)

(Appeals — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion —
Word mark SISSI ROSSI — Opposition by the holder of the
earlier word mark MISS ROSSI — Arguments presented for
the first time at the hearing — Offers of evidence)

(Directive 85/433/EEC — Mutual recognition of diplomas —
Pharmacists — Recognition of diplomas held by pharmacists
working in new pharmacies open to the public — Scope of
the discretion enjoyed by Member States)

(2006/C 224/23)

Language of the case: Italian

(2006/C 224/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Sergio Rossi SpA (represented by: A. Ruo, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented
by: O. Montalto and P. Bullock, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Sissi Rossi Srl, established in
Castenaso di Villanova (Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, avvo-
cato)

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sam Mc Cauley Chemists (Blackpool) Ltd, Mark
Sadja

Defendants: Pharmaceutical Society of
Health and Children, Ireland, Attorney General

Ireland, Minister

for

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber) of 1 March 2005 in Case T-169/03 Sergio
Rossi SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) — Dismissal of an action for annul-
ment brought by the proprietor of a national and international
word mark ‘MISS ROSSI’ for goods within Class 25, against
Decision R 569/2002-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of
28 February 2003 setting aside the decision of the Opposition

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court of Ireland
— Interpretation of Article 2(1) and (2) of Council Directive
85/433/EEC of 16 September 1985 concerning the mutual
recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
formal qualifications in pharmacy, including measures to facili-
tate the effective exercise of the right of establishment relating
to certain activities in the field of pharmacy (OJ 1985 L 253,
p. 37) — Scope of the discretion enjoyed by Member States in
regard to the recognition of diplomas held by pharmacists
working in new pharmacies open to the public

C 224/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2006

Operative part of the judgment

Re:

Article 2 of Council Directive 85/433/EEC of 16 September 1985
concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other
evidence of formal qualifications in pharmacy, including measures to
facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment relating to
certain activities in the field of pharmacy, must be interpreted as
meaning that a Member State which complies merely with the
minimal level of recognition of diplomas laid down by that directive is
not exercising any discretion conferred by that directive.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo
Regionale del Lazio — Validity of the EC-Hungary Agreement
of 23 November 1993 on the reciprocal protection and control
of wine names — Validity of an exchange of letters between
the parties to the agreement establishing a ban on use of the
name ‘Tocai’ in Italy from 2007 onwards

(1) OJ C 182, 23.07.2005.

Operative part of the order

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 May 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Confcoo-
perative, Unione regionale della Cooperazione Fvg Federa-
gricole, Friulvini Soc. coop. rl, Cantina Sociale di Ramus-
cello e S. Vito v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Fore-
stali, Regione Veneto

(Case C-231/04) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Proce-
dure — External relations — Agreement between the EC and
Hungary on the reciprocal protection and control of wine
names — Protection in the Community of a name relating to
certain wines originating in Hungary — Geographical indica-
tion ‘Tokaj’ — Exchange of letters — Possibility of using the
word ‘Tocai’ in the term ‘Tocai friulano’ or ‘Tocai italico’ for
the description and presentation of certain Italian wines, in
particular quality wines produced in specified regions
(‘quality wines psr’), during a transitional period expiring on
31 March 2007 — Exclusion of that possibility at the end of
the transitional period — Validity — Legal basis — Article
133 EC — Principles of international law relating to treaties
— Articles 22 to 24 of the TRIPs Agreement — Protection
of fundamental rights — Right to property)

(2006/C 224/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring Court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio

Parties

Applicants: Confcooperative, Unione regionale della Coopera-
zione Fvg Federagricole, Friulvini Soc. coop. rl, Cantina Sociale
di Ramuscello e S. Vito

Defendants: Ministero delle Politiche Agricole
Regione Veneto

e Forestali,

on

behalf

(1) The Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the
European Communities and their Member States, of the one part,
and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, concluded and
approved
by Decision
the
93/742/Euratom, ECSC, EC of the Council and of the Commis-
sion of 13 December 1993 does not constitute the legal basis of
Council Decision 93/724/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning
the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Com-
munity and the Republic of Hungary on the reciprocal protection
and control of wine names.

Community

of

(2) Article 133 EC, as referred to in the preamble to Decision
93/724, constitutes an appropriate legal basis for the conclusion
by the Community alone of the Agreement between the European
Community and the Republic of Hungary on the reciprocal
protection and control of wine names.

(3) The ban on the use of the name ‘Tocai’ in Italy after 31 March
2007, resulting from the exchange of letters concerning Article 4
the Agreement between the European Community and the
of
Republic of Hungary on the reciprocal protection and control of
wine names, is not contrary to the regime governing homonymous
geographical indications in Article 4(5) of that Agreement.

(4) The joint declaration regarding Article 4(5) of the Agreement
between the European Community and the Republic of Hungary
on the reciprocal protection and control of wine names, insofar as
it outlines, in its first paragraph, that, as regards Article 4(5)(a)
of the same Agreement, the contracting parties noted that, at the
time of the negotiations, they did not know of any specific case
where the provisions in question might apply, does not constitute
a manifestly erroneous interpretation of reality.

(5) Articles 22 to 24 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights, found at Annex 1 C to the Agree-
ment establishing the World Trade Organisation, concluded on
behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its
competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December
1994, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as the
present one concerning homonymy between a geographical indica-
tion of a non-member country and a vine name used for the
certain Community wines
description and presentation of
produced from those vines, these provisions do not require that
both the names can continue to be used in the future, notwith-
standing the twofold fact that they have been used in the past by
the respective producers either in good faith or for at least 10
years prior to 15 April 1994 and that each name indicates
clearly the country or region or area of origin of the protected
wine to which it refers in such a way as not to mislead consu-
mers.