Case C-233/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (České republiky) lodged on 30 May 2008 — Milan Kyrian v Celní úřad Tábor
Date: 2008-05-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, courts and tribunals, document, interpretation of the law, legal cooperation, official language, redemption

C 209/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.8.2008

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší
správní soud (České republiky) lodged on 30 May 2008 —
Milan Kyrian v Celní úřad Tábor

Parties to the main proceedings

(Case C-233/08)

(2008/C 209/38)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Milan Kyrian

Defendant: Celní úřad Tábor

Questions referred

1. Must Article 12(3) of Council Directive of 15 March 1976
on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to
certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures be interpreted
as meaning that, where measures for enforcement of a claim
are contested before the court of a Member State in which
the requested authority has its seat, that court is entitled, in
accordance with the legislation of
that Member State, to
the instrument permitting enforcement
review whether
(enforcement order)
is enforceable and has been properly
served on the debtor (1)?

2. Does it follow from general legal principles of Community
law, in particular from the principles of a right to a fair trial,
sound administration and the rule of law, that service of the
instrument permitting enforcement (enforcement order) on
the debtor in a language other than one he understands,
which, moreover, is not an official language of the State in
which it is served on the debtor, constitutes a defect which
makes it possible to refuse to enforce on the basis of such an
instrument permitting enforcement (enforcement order)?

(1) OJ L 73, s. 18.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
lodged on 3 June 2008 — Google
Cassation (France)

France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier

(Case C-236/08)

(2008/C 209/39)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de Cassation (Commercial, Financial and Economic Divi-
sion)

Appellants: Google France, Google Inc.

Respondent: Louis Vuitton Malletier

Questions referred

1. Must Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of First Council Directive
89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the
laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) and
Article 9(1)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94
of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (2) be
interpreted as meaning that a provider of a paid referencing
service who makes available to advertisers keywords reprodu-
cing or imitating registered trade marks and arranges by the
referencing agreement to create and favourably display, on
the basis of those keywords, advertising links to sites offering
infringing goods is using those trade marks in a manner
which their proprietor is entitled to prevent?

2. In the event that the trade marks have a reputation, may the
proprietor oppose such use under Article 5(2) of the direc-
tive and Article 9(1)(c) of the regulation?

3. In the event that such use does not constitute a use which
may be prevented by the trade mark proprietor under the
directive or the regulation, may the provider of the paid
referencing service be regarded as providing an information
information
society service consisting of
provided by the recipient of the service, within the meaning
of Article 14 of Directive 2000/31 of 8 June 2000 (3), so
that that provider cannot incur liability until it has been noti-
fied by the trade mark proprietor of the unlawful use of the
sign by the advertiser?

the storage of

(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.
(3) Directive 2000/31/EC of

the
Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information
society services,
in the Internal
in particular electronic commerce,
Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).

the European Parliament and of