Case C-361/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 4 September 2006 — Feinchemie Schwebda GmbH and Bayer CropScience AG v College voor de Toelating van Bestrijdingsmiddelen; other party to the proceedings: Agrichem B.V.
Date: 2006-12-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, market approval, pharmaceutical product, plant health product

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/23

Question referred

access to, a dossier satisfying the conditions set out in Annex II
to Directive 91/414/EEC? (2)

Is Article 4(1) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be interpreted as
meaning that if a natural person has the sole activity of actually
carrying out all work ensuing from the activities of a private
limited company of which he is the sole manager, sole share-
holder and sole ‘member of staff’, that work is not an economic
activity because it is carried out in the course of the manage-
ment and representation of the private limited company and
thus not in economic dealings?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmo-
nisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
— Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ L 145, p. 1)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 4
September 2006 — Feinchemie Schwebda GmbH and
Bayer CropScience AG v College voor de Toelating van
Bestrijdingsmiddelen; other party to the proceedings: Agri-
chem B.V.

(Case C-361/06)

(2006/C 294/40)

Language of the case: Dutch

(1) Commission Directive 2002/37/EC of 3 May 2002 amending
Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include ethofumesate as an active
substance (OJ 2002 L 117, p. 10).

(2) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230,
p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden, lodged on 12 September 2006 — Bene-
tton Group SpA v G-Star International B.V.

(Case C-371/06)

(2006/C 294/41)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Benetton Group SpA

Defendant: G-Star International B.V.

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Questions referred

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Feinchemie Schwebda GmbH and Bayer CropScience
AG

Defendant: College voor de Toelating van Bestrijdingsmiddelen

Other party to the proceedings: Agrichem B.V.

Question referred

Must Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/37/EC (1)be interpreted as
meaning that that provision does not require Member States to
terminate the authorisation of a plant protection product
containing ethofumesate before 1 September 2003 on the
ground that the authorisation holder does not have, or have

(1) Must Article 3(1)(e),

first

indent (1), be interpreted as
meaning that
the prohibition contained therein perma-
nently precludes the registration of a shape as a trade mark
where the nature of the product is such that its appearance
and shaping determine its market value entirely or substan-
tially as a result of their beauty or original character, or
does the prohibition not apply where, prior to the applica-
tion for registration, the attractiveness of the relevant shape
to the public has been determined predominantly by the
recognition of it as a distinctive sign?

(2) If the answer to Question 1 is to the latter effect, to what
extent must this attractiveness have prevailed for the prohi-
bition no longer to apply?

(1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks
(OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1).