Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 212/14 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 28.7.2001

—
Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs. (b) the third party has no defence to infringement by
virtue of Article 6(1) of the Council Directive of the
21st December 1988 to approximate the laws of
_Pleas in law and main arguments_ the Member States relating to trade marks
(89/104/EEC)( [1] );
The Commission submits that Netherlands has not correctly
implemented the following provisions of the directive into does the third party have a defence to infringement on
Netherlands law: the ground that the use complained of does not indicate
— trade origin (i.e. a connection in the course of trade
Article 8(2) (use of anaesthesia in the case of serious
between the goods and the trade mark proprietor)?
injury which may cause severe pain): A draft amendment
to the ‘Dierproevenbesluit’ (animal experiments order) for
2. If so, is the fact that the use in question would be
the implementation of Article 8(2)(b), last sentence,
perceived as a badge of support, loyalty or affiliation to
of the directive, was, according to the Netherlands
the trade mark proprietor a sufficient connection?
Government, recently sent for the opinion of the Raad
van State.

—
Article 11 (release of animals): The Commission submits
that Article 10(a), second paragraph of the Wet op de ( [1] ) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1.
Dierproeven (law on animal experiments) has a general
scope and does not concern specifically the release of
animals.

—
Article 18(1) (identification marking of dogs, cats and
primates): There is no provision in Netherlands law to
the effect that _before they are weaned_ they must be provided
with an individual identification mark _in the least painful_
_manner possible_ .

—
Article 22(1) (mutual recognition of results of animal
experiments): The Commission submits that this pro- **Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfin-**
vision must be implemented in national law by means of **anzhof by order of that court of 21 February 2001 in the**
a statutory provision with binding force. **case of Theodor Schilling and Angelika Fleck-Schilling v**
**Finanzamt Nürnberg-Süd**

( [1] ) OJ 1987, L 117, p. 31.
**(Case C-209/01)**

(2001/C 212/24)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Bundesfinanzhof
**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of** (Federal Finance Court) of 21 February 2001, which was
**Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order** received at the Court Registry on 21 May 2001, for a
**of that court of 4 May 2001, in the case of Arsenal** preliminary ruling in the case of Theodor Schilling and
**Football Club plc against Matthew Reed** Angelika Fleck-Schilling v Finanzamt Nürnberg-Süd on the
following questions:

**(Case C-206/01)**
1. Is it contrary to the first paragraph of Article 14 of the
Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the Euro(2001/C 212/23)
pean Communities of 8 April 1965 (BGBl II 1965, 1482,
1488) if German nationals who work in Luxembourg as
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the officials of the European Community and live there may
European Communities by an order of the High Court of not, in the context of assessment to German income tax,
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, of 4 May 2001, deduct expenditure in respect of a household help
which was received at the Court Registry on 18 May 2001, for employed in Luxembourg under Paragraph 10(1)(8) of
a preliminary ruling in the case of Arsenal Football Club plc the Einkommensteuergesetz (Law on income tax) because
against Matthew Reed, on the following questions: the contributions to the statutory pension insurance
scheme for the household help were not paid to the
1. Where a trade mark is validly registered and
German pension insurance scheme?
(a) a third party uses in the course of trade a sign
identical with that trade mark in relation to goods 2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is Article 48(4)
which are identical with those for whom the trade- of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that an EC
mark is registered; and official may not rely on Article 48 of the EC Treaty?