Case C-304/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on  9 July 2008 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH
Date: 2008-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, interpretation of the law, restriction on competition, sales promotion, single market

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

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/7

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

Defendant: Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH

Question referred

Is Article 5(2) of Directive 2005/29/EC of
the European
Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning
unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal
market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives
97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the
European
Council Directive
2005/29/EC (1) on unfair commercial practices to be interpreted
as meaning that that provision precludes a national provision
which states that a commercial practice whereby the participa-
tion of consumers in a prize competition or lottery is made
conditional on the purchase of goods or the supply of services
is in principle unlawful, irrespective of whether, in any particular
case, the advertising in question affects consumers' interests?

Parliament

and

the

of

(1) OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
Stato (Italy) lodged on 4 July 2008 — CoNISMa (Consorzio
Nazionale Interuniversitario per le Scienze del Mare) v
Regione Marche

(Case C-305/08)

(2008/C 247/11)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CoNISMa (Consorzio Nazionale Interuniversitario per
le Scienze del Mare)

Defendant: Regione Marche

Questions referred

1. Must the provisions of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) on the coor-
the award of public works
dination of procedures for
contracts, public
service
and public
contracts that are referred to in section 1 above be inter-
preted as precluding a consortium made up solely of Italian

supply contracts

universities and state bodies, as described in section 8 above,
from taking part in a tendering procedure for the award of a
service contract such as that for the acquisition of geophy-
sical data and marine samples?

2. Are the provisions of Italian law contained in Article 3(22)
and (19) and Article 34 of
the Public Contracts Code,
enacted by Legislative Decree No 163/2006, which provide,
respectively: that ‘the term “economic operator” shall include
a contractor, supplier, service provider or a group or consor-
tium of these’ and ‘the terms “contractor”, “supplier” and
“service provider” shall mean any natural or legal person, or
including a European
body without
Economic Interest Group (EEIG) formed pursuant to Legisla-
tive Decree No 240 of 23 July 1991, which “offers on the
market”, respectively, the execution of works or a work, the
supply of products or the provision of services’, contrary to
Directive 2004/18/EC if interpreted as restricting participa-
tion in tendering procedures to professional providers of
such services and excluding entities whose primary objects
are not-for-profit, such as research?

legal personality,

(1) OJ L 2004 134, p. 114.

Action brought on 11 July 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-309/08)

(2008/C 247/12)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Nijenhuis and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to ensure the proper implementation
law of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European
in national
Parliament and of
the Council of 7 March 2002 on a
common regulatory framework for electronic communica-
tions networks and services (Framework Directive) (1),
in
particular Article 3(2) and (3) concerning the requirements
that national regulatory authorities be independent and that
they exercise their powers impartially and transparently, the
Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive;

— order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.