Case C-294/08: Action brought on 2 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
Date: 2008-07-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, EC conformity marking, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, approval, quantitative restriction, used goods, vehicle registration

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/5

5. Is there an ‘economic activity’ even where advertising services
are invoiced to the subordinate organisations in the form of
a charge the amount of which is determined firstly by the
number of members in the relevant local organisation and
secondly by the number of members it sends to representa-
tive assemblies?

6. In determining whether there is economic activity, should
subsidies from public funds which do not form part of the
taxable consideration (such as, for example, the financing of
parties under the Carinthian Parteienförderungsgesetz (Law
on the financing of parties) be taken into consideration as it
were as economic advantages?

7. If the ‘external advertising’, viewed in isolation, constitutes
an economic activity within the meaning of Article 4(1) and
(2) of the Sixth Directive, does the fact that publicity and
election advertising is a central feature of the activity of poli-
tical parties and a condition sine qua non for the imple-
menting of political objectives and programmes preclude
such activity from being classified as an ‘economic activity’?

8. Are the activities performed by the appellant and described
by it as ‘external advertising’ of such a nature as to be
to, activities
comparable with, or correspond in content
the
carried out by commercial advertising agencies for
purposes of Annex D (number 10) of the Sixth Directive? If
that question is answered affirmatively, can the extent of the
activities be described as ‘not insignificant’ in the context of
the revenue/expenditure structure prevailing at the material
time for the purposes of the appeal?

(1) OJ L 145, p. 1.

Form of order sought

— declare that,

— by requiring, on registration of imported vehicles for
which there is proof of type-approval with regard to
roadworthiness by another Member State, that, at the
time of that type-approval with regard to roadworthi-
ness, a vehicle complies with the technical requirements
in force at that time in the Czech Republic and

— by requiring,

in the event of non-fulfilment of those
the vehicle
requirements, a test
complies with the technical requirements in force for the
given category of vehicles in the Czech Republic at the
time of the vehicle's manufacture,

to verify whether

the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 28 of the Treaty establishing the European Com-
munity;

— order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Czech Law, the conditions for the registration of second-
hand vehicles imported into the Czech Republic from other
Member States where they were previously registered, are laid
down by Law No 56/2001 Coll. (1). Article 35(1) and (2) of Law
No 56/2001 Coll. lays down conditions for the registration of
individually imported second-hand vehicles for which there is
type-approval with regard to roadworthiness by
proof of
another Member State.

technical units fulfilled, at

The Czech authorities approve the roadworthiness of such a
vehicle provided that the vehicle, its systems, structural parts or
independent
type-
approval with regard to roadworthiness in another EU Member
State, the technical requirements in force at that time in the
Czech Republic and laid down in the implementing legislation
(Article 35(1) of Law No 56/2001 Coll.).

the time of

Action brought on 2 July 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Czech Republic

(Case C-294/08)

(2008/C 247/07)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: B. Schima and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic

If, at the time of type-approval with regard to roadworthiness in
another Member State, the vehicle, its systems, structural parts
or independent technical units did not fulfil the conditions in
force at that time in the Czech Republic and laid down in the
implementing legislation, the appropriate authority is to decide
on approval of roadworthiness for the vehicle on the basis of
the technical report issued by the testing centre. The testing
centre is to issue a technical certificate if the vehicle fulfils the
technical conditions in force for the given category of vehicle in
the Czech Republic at the time of the vehicle's manufacture
(Article 35(2) of Law No 56/2001 Coll.).

It follows from Article 35(1) and (2) of Law No 56/2001 that
the roadworthiness of all second-hand vehicles,
for which
another Member State has issued a certificate of type-approval
with regard to roadworthiness,
is always re-examined in the
light of Czech law. That approach is, in the Commission's view,
in breach of the principle of the freedom of moment of goods,
according to which goods placed on the market in accordance
with the legislation of one Member State must be admitted to
the markets of all other Member States. The Czech legislation
does not in any way take account of the results of the road-
worthiness test carried out on the vehicles in question in
another Member State, thereby constituting an infringement of
Article 3(2) of Council Directive 96/96/EC.

C 247/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.9.2008

In view of the foregoing, the Commission is of the view that the
Czech legislation constitutes a measure having equivalent effect
to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 28 EC.
That measure is incapable of procuring the protection of the
health and life of humans and the environment or road safety
and is thus not justified by Article 30 of the EC Treaty or by the
case-law of the European Court of Justice.

(1) Law No 56/2001 Coll. on conditions for operating vehicles on roads
and on changes in Law No 168/1999 Coll. on liability insurance for
damage caused by operating a vehicle and on changes in various
related laws (‘Law on liability insurance for operating a vehicle’), as
amended by Law No 307/1999 Coll.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
lodged on 8 July 2008 — Zino
München (Germany)

Davidoff SA v Bundesfinanzdirektion Südost

(Case C-302/08)

(2008/C 247/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zino Davidoff SA

Defendant: Bundesfinanzdirektion Südost

Question referred

In the light of the accession of the European Community to the
Madrid Protocol,
is Article 5(4) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003, concerning customs action
against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual prop-
erty rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to
have infringed such rights (1), to be interpreted as meaning that,
despite the use of the term ‘Community trade mark’, marks with
international registrations within the meaning of Article 146
et seq. of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December
1993 on the Community trade mark, as amended by Council
Regulation (EC) No 1992/2003 of 27 October 2003, are also
covered?

(1) OJ 2003 L 196, p. 7.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
verwaltungsgericht (Deutschland) lodged on 8 July 2008 —
Metin Bozkurt v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-303/08)

(2008/C 247/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Metin Bozkurt

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Other party: Der Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundes-
verwaltungsgericht

Questions referred

1. Is the right of residence and employment acquired as a
member of the family pursuant to the second indent of the
first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
EEC-Turkey Association Council by the spouse of a Turkish
worker who is duly registered as belonging to the labour
force of a Member State retained even after a divorce?

If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative:

2. Is it an abuse of rights to plead the right of residence derived
from his former wife under the second indent of the first
the
paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of
EEC-Turkey Association Council where the Turkish national
raped and injured his former wife after acquiring the legal
status and the offence was punished with two years' impri-
sonment?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
gerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 9 July 2008 — Zentrale
zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v Plus
Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH

(Case C-304/08)

(2008/C 247/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof