Case C-533/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 28 December 2006 — 02 Holdings Limited & 02 (UK) Limited v Hutchinson 3G UK Limited
Date: 2007-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: brand name, comparative advertising, competition, interpretation of the law, trade-mark law

C 56/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.3.2007

(b) the prohibition of restrictions on the freedom of establish-
ment of nationals of a Member State in the territory of
another Member State (first paragraph of Article 43 EC),

(c) the requirement of necessity under Article 7(e) of Directive
95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
24 October 1995 on the protection of
individuals with
regard to the processing of personal data and on the free
movement of such data (1)?

(1) OJ L 281, 1995, p. 31.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden lodged on 27 December 2006 — R.H.H.
Renneberg v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-527/06)

(2007/C 56/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis
Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 29 December 2006 — Emm.
G. Lianakis AE, Sima Anonimi Techniki Etairia Meleton kai
Epivlepseon and Nikolaos Vlachopoulos v Dimos Alexan-
droupolis, Planitiki A.E., Aikaterini Georgoula, Dim. Vasios,
N. Loukatos & Sinergates Anonimi Etairia Meleton,
Eratosthenis Meletitiki A.E., A. Pantazis — Pan. Kirio-
poulou & Sinergates (‘Filon’) O.E. and Nikolaos Sideris

(Case C-532/06)

(2007/C 56/36)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Emm. G. Lianakis AE, Sima Anonimi Techniki Etairia
Meleton kai Epivlepseon and Nikolaos Vlachopoulos

Defendants: Dimos Alexandroupolis, Planitiki A.E., Aikaterini
Georgoula, Dim. Vasios, N. Loukatos & Sinergates Anonimi
Etairia Meleton, Eratosthenis Meletitiki A.E., A. Pantazis — Pan.
Kiriopoulou & Sinergates (‘Filon’) O.E. and Nikolaos Sideris

Question referred

If the tender notice for the award of a contract for services
makes provision only for the order of priority of the award
criteria, without stipulating the weighting factors for each
criterion, does Article 36 of Directive 92/50/EEC (1) relating to
the coordination of the procedures for the award of public
service contracts allow criteria to be weighted by the evaluation
committee at a later date and, if so, under what conditions?

Appellant: R.H.H. Renneberg

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Must Articles 39 EC and 56 EC be interpreted as precluding,
either individually or jointly, a situation in which a taxpayer
in his country of residence, has (on balance) negative
who,
income from a dwelling owned and occupied by him and
obtains all of his positive income, specifically work-related
income, in a Member State other than that in which he resides
is not permitted by that other Member State (the State of
employment) to deduct the negative income from his taxed
work-related income, even though the State of employment
does allow its own residents to make such a deduction?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal
(United Kingdom) made on 28 December 2006 — 02 Hold-
ings Limited & 02 (UK) Limited v Hutchinson 3G UK
Limited

(Case C-533/06)

(2007/C 56/37)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/21

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: 02 Holdings Limited & 02 (UK) Limited

Defendant: Hutchinson 3G UK Limited

Questions referred

1. Where a trader, in an advertisement for his own goods or
services uses a registered trade mark owned by a competitor
for the purpose of comparing the characteristics (and in par-
ticular the price) of goods or services marketed by him with
the characteristics (and in particular the price) of the goods
or services marketed by the competitor under that mark in
such a way that it does not cause confusion or otherwise
jeopardize the essential function of the trade mark as an indi-
cation of origin, does his use fall within either (a) or (b) of
Art. 5 of Directive 89/104 (1)?

2. Where a trader uses,

in a comparative advertisement, the
registered trade mark of a competitor, in order to comply
with Art. 3a of Directive 84/450 (2) as amended must that
use be ‘indispensable’ and if so what are the criteria by which
indispensability is to be judged?

3. In particular,

if there is a requirement of indispensability,
does the requirement preclude any use of a sign which is not
identical to the registered trade mark but is closely similar to
it?

(1) OJ L 40, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 250, p. 17.

Action brought on 12 January 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-6/07)

(2007/C 56/38)

80/987/EEC on the approximation of laws of the Member
States relating to the protection of employees in the event of
the insolvency of their employer, and in any case, by failing
to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of
Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for the transposition into national law of
Directive 2002/74 expired on 8 October 2005.

(1) OJ L 270, 2002, p. 10.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 18 January 2007 —
Hans Eckelkamp and Others v Belgian State

(Case C-11/07)

(2007/C 56/39)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Beroep te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Hans Eckelkamp and Others

Respondent: Belgian State

Language of the case: Spanish

Question referred

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Enegren and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

— Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive
2002/74/EC (1) of
the
Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive

the European Parliament and of

Do Article 12 EC,
in conjunction with Articles 17 EC and
18 EC, and Article 56 EC, in conjunction with Article 57 EC,
preclude national rules of a Member State under which, in the
context of the acquisition, through inheritance, of immovable
property situate in a Member State (the State in which the prop-
erty is situate), that State imposes a tax on the value of the
immovable property situate in that State, in respect of which
that State allows a deduction corresponding to the value of
charges on that immovable property (such as debts secured by
the right conferred on a creditor to take out a mortgage against
that immovable property)
if the testator, at the time of his
in the State in which the property is
demise, was resident
situate, but not if the testator, at the time of his demise, was
living in a different Member State (the State of residence)?