Case C-32/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil Número Uno, Alicante, (Spain), lodged on 28 January 2008 — Fundación Española para la Innovación de la Artesanía (FEIA) v Cul de Sac Espacio Creativo, S.L. and Acierta Product & Position, S.A.
Date: 2008-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, designs and models, industrial property, intellectual property, interpretation of the law, labour law, national law

C 92/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.4.2008

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo
Mercantil Número Uno, Alicante,
lodged on
28 January 2008 — Fundación Española para la Innovación
de la Artesanía (FEIA) v Cul de Sac Espacio Creativo, S.L.
and Acierta Product & Position, S.A.

(Spain),

(Case C-32/08)

(2008/C 92/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

4. In the event that national law is to be relied on, is it possible
to apply national law where it places on an equal footing (as
Spanish law does) designs produced in the context of an
to the
employment
employer, unless it has been agreed otherwise) and designs
produced as a result of a commission (the designs belong to
the party who commissioned them, unless it has been agreed
otherwise)?

relationship (the designs belong

5. In the event that the answer to the fourth question is in the
affirmative, would such a solution (the designs belong to the
party who commissioned them, unless it has been agreed
otherwise) conflict with the negative answer to the second
question?

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil Número Uno, Alicante

(1) OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1.

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:
Artesanía (FEIA)

Fundación Española para

la

Innovación de

la

Defendant: Cul de Sac Espacio Creativo, S.L. and Acierta Product
& Position, S.A.

Questions referred

1. Must Article 14(3) of [Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002
of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (1)] be inter-
preted as referring only to Community designs developed in
the context of an employment
relationship where the
designer is bound by a contract governed by employment
law whose provisions are such that the designer works under
the direction and in the employ of another? or

2. Must the terms ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ in Article 14(3) of
Regulation No 6/2002 be interpreted broadly so as to
include situations other than employment relationships, such
as a relationship where, in accordance with a civil/commer-
cial contract (and therefore one which does not provide that
an individual habitually works under the direction and in the
employ of another), an individual (designer) undertakes to
execute a design for another individual for a settled price
and, as a result, it is understood that the design belongs to
the person who commissioned it, unless the contract stipu-
lates otherwise?

3. In the event that the answer to the second question is in the
negative, on the ground that
the production of designs
within an employment relationship and the production of
designs within a non-employment relationship constitute
different factual situations,

(a) is it necessary to apply the general rule in Article 14(1)
of Regulation No 6/2002 and, consequently, must the
designs be construed as belonging to the designer, unless
the parties stipulate otherwise in the contract? or

(b) must the Community design court rely on national law
governing designs in accordance with Article 88(2) of
Regulation No 6/2002?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof, Austria lodged on 28 January 2008 —
AGRANA Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und
Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

(Case C-33/08)

(2008/C 92/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AGRANA Zucker GmbH

Defendant: Bundesminister
Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

für Land- und Forstwirtschaft,

Questions referred

1. Must Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of
20 February 2006 be interpreted as meaning that even a
sugar quota which cannot be utilised as a consequence of a
in accordance with Article 3 of
preventive withdrawal
Commission Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 of 27 March
2006 must be included in the assessment of the temporary
restructuring amount?