Case C-74/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 90 EC — Registration tax on imported second-hand cars — Determination of taxable value — Depreciation of vehicles based solely on age — Publicising of criteria of calculation — Possibility of challenging the application of the fixed method of calculation)
Date: 2007-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, import, motor car, tax system, used goods, vehicle registration

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/11

Re:

Parties to the main proceedings

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof —
Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of
undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses
(OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16) — Scope of application — Concept of
‘part of an undertaking’ — Transfer between two temporary
staff agencies of an office worker, a branch manager, a customer
adviser and a manager and a third of
the temporary staff
together with the clients using those staff.

Operative part of the Judgment

Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on
the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertak-
ings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be inter-
preted as applying to a situation where part of
the administrative
personnel and part of the temporary workers are transferred to another
temporary employment business in order to carry out the same activities
in that business for the same clients and — which is a matter for the
referring court to establish — the assets affected by the transfer are
sufficient in themselves to allow the services characterising the economic
activity in question to be provided without recourse to other significant
assets or to other parts of the business.

(1) OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 September
2007 — Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour
d'appel de Nancy, France — Céline SARL v Celine SA

(Case C-17/06) (1)

(Trade marks — Articles 5(1)(a) and 6(1)(a) of First Directive
89/104/EEC — Right of the proprietor of a registered trade
mark to oppose the use by a third party of a sign which is
identical to the mark — Use of the sign as a company, trade
or shop name — Right of the third party to use his name)

(2007/C 269/21)

Language of the case: French

Applicant: Céline SARL

Defendant: Céline SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Nancy —
Interpretation of Article 5(1) of Directive 89/104/EEC: First
Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approx-
imate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks
(OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Use of a sign identical to a registered
word mark as a company name and shop name in connection
with the marketing of identical goods.

Operative part of the judgment

The unauthorised use by a third party of a company name, trade name
or shop name which is identical to an earlier mark in connection with
the marketing of goods which are identical to those in relation to
which that mark was registered constitutes use which the proprietor of
that mark is entitled to prevent in accordance with Article 5(1)(a) of
First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks,
where the use is in relation to goods in such a way as to affect or to be
liable to affect the functions of the mark.

Should that be the case, Article 6(1)(a) of Directive 89/104 can
operate as a bar to such use being prevented only if the use by the
third party of his company name or trade name is in accordance with
honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.

(1) OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September
the European Communities v
2007 — Commission of

Hellenic Republic

(Case C-74/06) (1)

to

fulfil

of a Member State

(Failure
obligations —
Article 90 EC — Registration tax on imported second-hand
cars — Determination of taxable value — Depreciation of
vehicles based solely on age — Publicising of criteria of calcu-
lation — Possibility of challenging the application of the fixed
method of calculation)

(2007/C 269/22)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring Party

Cour d'appel de Nancy

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agent)

C 269/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.11.2007

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos
and K. Boskovits, Agents)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staat der Nederlanden

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
of Article 90 EC — Discriminatory taxation on imported
second-hand cars

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

second-hand vehicles

1) Declares that, by applying a single criterion of depreciation, based
for the purpose of determining the
on the age of the vehicles,
taxable value of
imported from another
Member State into Greek territory in order to establish the registra-
tion tax, and by adopting a reduction in value of 7 % for vehicles
between 6 and 12 months old or 14 % for vehicles more than a
year old, which does not ensure that the tax due does not exceed,
even if only in certain cases, the amount of the residual tax incor-
porated in the value of similar second-hand vehicles already regis-
tered in the national territory, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 90 EC;

2) Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3) Orders the Hellenic Republic and the Commission to bear their

own costs.

Antroposana,

Defendants:
voor
Antroposofische Gezondheidszorg, Nederlandse Vereniging van
Antroposofische Artsen, Weleda Nederland NV, Wala Nederland
NV

Patiëntenvereniging

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpreta-
tion of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code
relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311,
p. 67) — Marketing authorisation for anthroposophic medicinal
products which are not homeopathic medicinal products within
the meaning of Chapter 2 of Title III of the directive — National
legislation which makes anthroposophic medicinal products
subject to the conditions set out in Chapter 1 of Title III of the
directive — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC.

Operative part of the judgment

Anthroposophic medicinal products may be marketed only on condition
that they have been authorised under one of the procedures referred to
in Article 6 of Directive 2001/83 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to
medicinal products for human use.

(1) OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

(1) OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge
Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staat der
Nederlanden v Antroposana, Patiëntenvereniging voor
Antroposofische Gezondheidszorg, Nederlandse Vereniging
van Antroposofische Artsen, Weleda Nederland NV, Wala
Nederland NV,

(Case C-84/06) (1)

(Community code relating to medicinal products for human
use — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Registration and
authorisation — Anthroposophic medicinal
marketing

products)

(2007/C 269/23)

Language of the case: Dutch

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September
a preliminary ruling from the
2007 (reference for
Tampereen käräjäoikeus — Finland) — Sari Kiiski v
Tampereen kaupunki

(Case C-116/06) (1)

(Equal treatment for men and women — Protection of preg-
nant employees — Article 2 of Directive 76/207/EEC —
Right to maternity leave — Articles 8 and 11 of Directive
92/85/EEC — Effect on the right to obtain an alteration of
the duration of ‘child-care leave’)

(2007/C 269/24)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Tampereen käräjäoikeus