Case C-485/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 5 November 2007 — Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen v H. Akdas and Others
Date: 2007-11-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, association agreement (EU), equal treatment, interpretation of the law, migrant worker, social security, social-security benefit, worker (EU)

C 22/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.1.2008

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht
Wien (Austria) lodged on 25 October 2007 — Budějovický
Budvar národní podnik v Rudolf Ammersin GmbH

(Case C-478/07)

(2008/C 22/45)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Budějovický Budvar národní podnik

Defendant: Rudolf Ammersin GmbH

Questions referred

1. In its judgment of 18 November 2003 in Case C-216/01 the
Court of Justice defined the requirements for the compat-
ibility with Article 28 EC of the protection of a designation
as a geographical indication which in the country of origin is
the name neither of a place nor of a region, namely that
such a designation must,

— according to the factual circumstances and

— perceptions in the country of origin, designate a region

or a place in that State,

— and that its protection must be justified there on the

basis of the criteria laid down in Article 30 EC.

Do those requirements mean:

1.1. that the designation as such fulfils a specific geogra-
phical indication function referring to a particular place
or a particular region, or does it suffice that the desig-
nation is capable,
in conjunction with the product
bearing it, of informing consumers that the product
bearing it comes from a particular place or a particular
region in the country of origin;

in connection with the accession of

month period provided for in [Commission] Regulation (EC)
No 918/2004 [of 29 April 2004 introducing transitional
arrangements for the protection of geographical indications
and designations of origin for agricultural products and food-
stuffs
the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta,
Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia] (1) or otherwise in the context
of [Council] Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 [of 20 March
indications and
2006 on the protection of geographical
designations of origin for agricultural products and food-
stuffs] (2) mean that existing national protection, or in any
case protection that has been extended bilaterally to another
Member State, becomes void if the designation is a qualified
geographical indication under the national law of the State
of origin?

3. Does the circumstance that, in the context of the Treaty of
the European
Accession between the Member States of
Union and a new Member State, the protection of several
qualified geographical
indications for a foodstuff has been
claimed by that Member State in accordance with Regulation
(EC) No 510/2006 mean that national protection, or in any
case protection that has been extended bilaterally to another
Member State, for another designation for the same product
may no longer be maintained,
and Regulation (EC)
No 510/2006 has preclusive effect to that extent?

(1) OJ L 163 of 30.4.2004, p. 88.
(2) OJ L 93 of 31.3.2006, p. 12.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad
van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 5 November 2007 —
Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werkne-
mersverzekeringen v H. Akdas and Others

(Case C-485/07)

(2008/C 22/46)

Language of the case: Dutch

1.2. that the three conditions are conditions to be examined

separately and to be satisfied cumulatively;

Referring court

1.3. that a consumer survey is to be carried out for ascer-
taining perceptions in the country of origin, and, if so,
that that a low, medium or high degree of recognition
and association is required;

1.4. that the designation has actually been used as a geogra-
phical indication by several undertakings, not just one
undertaking, in the country of origin and that use as a
trade mark by a single undertaking precludes protec-
tion?

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut
werknemersverzekeringen

2. Does the circumstance that a designation has not been noti-
fied or its registration applied for either within the six-

Defendants: H. Akdas and Others

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/25

Questions referred

1. Having regard to the wording, objective and nature of
Article 6(1) of Decision 3/80 (1) and to the objective and
nature of the Association Agreement (2), does that provision
contain a clear and accurately defined obligation whose fulfil-
require any supplementary
ment and effect does not
measures, it therefore being appropriate for that provision to
have direct effect?

2. If the answer to the first question is affirmative:

2.1 In the application of Article 6(1) of Decision 3/80, must
account be taken in any way of the amendments to
Regulation No 1408/71 (3), such as those which have
been made since 19 September 1980 with respect to
special benefits which are not based on the payment of
premiums or contributions?

2.2 In this connection,

the Additional
to the Association Agreement of signifi-

is Article 59 of

Protocol (4)
cance?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema
lodged on 5 November 2007 —
di Cassazione (Italy)
in Agricoltura (AGEA) v
Agenzia per

le Erogazioni

Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna Soc. Coop. Arl

(Case C-486/07)

(2008/C 22/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

Defendant: Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna Soc. Coop. Arl

3. Must Article 9 of the Association Agreement be interpreted
as precluding the application of a Member State's legislation,
such as Article 4a of the Netherlands TW, which results in
an indirect distinction being made on grounds of nationality,

Question referred

— firstly, because the number of nationals of countries
other than the Netherlands, including a large group of
Turkish nationals, who are not, or no longer, entitled to a
supplementary benefit because they are no longer resi-
is higher than such persons
dent in the Netherlands,
having Dutch nationality, and

— secondly, because the supplementary benefits of Turkish
nationals resident in Turkey have been withdrawn since
1 July 2003, whereas the phasing out of the supplemen-
tary benefits of nationals of a Member State of the EU
and of third countries, provided that they are resident in
the territory of the EU, did not begin until 1 January
2007?

‘On the basis of the EEC regulations in force at the time of the
facts of the case (1994 to 1995) on the sale of cereals held by
intervention agencies, do the price reductions laid down in
respect of the presence of a higher moisture content than that
of the standard quality apply also to the sale of maize?’

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht
lodged on 6 November 2007 — Pia
Lahr (Germany)

Messner v Firma Stefan Krüger

(1) Decision 3/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on
the application of the social security schemes of the Member States
of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of
their families (OJ 1983 C 110, p. 60).

(2) Agreement establishing an Association between the European
Economic Community and Turkey, which was signed in Ankara on
12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey on the one hand and
the Member States of the EEC and the Community on the other
hand and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Com-
munity by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963
(OJ 1973 C 133, p. 1).

(3) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on
the application of social security schemes to employed persons and
their families moving within the Community (OJ, English special
edition 1971 (II), p. 416).

(4) Additional Protocol signed at Brussels on 23 November 1970 and
concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972
(OJ 1973 C 133, p. 17).

(Case C-489/07)

(2008/C 22/48)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Lahr

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pia Messner

Defendants: Stefan Krüger, SFK Laptophandel