Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

14.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 200/53

— Infringement of Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689/EEC: 4. Article 12 of the Trade Marks Directive provides that a
Under the first indent of Article 1(4), a precise and trade mark shall be ‘liable’ to revocation in specified
uniform definition of hazardous waste, required for circumstances. When those circumstances exist, must the
application of the directive, is achieved by reference to court revoke the trade mark, or does the court retain any
Annexes I, II and III to the directive and the list of discretion as to whether to revoke?
hazardous waste to be drawn up in accordance with the
procedure laid down in Article 18. It follows that, in their
legislation to transpose the directive, the Member States ( [1] ) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1.
must take those annexes and that list as a basis for
determining the field of application of their national
provisions. The list, which is contained in Council
Decision 94/904/EC, supplements the provisions of the
directive on hazardous waste.

The possibility for the Member States to adopt stricter
protective measures in fields harmonised by Community
**Action brought on 8 May 2001 by the Commission of the**
environmental provisions is not to be equated with an
**European Communities against the Grand Duchy of**
option not to transpose such harmonisation measures.
**Luxembourg**

**(Case C-196/01)**
( [1] ) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 47.

( [2] ) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32. (2001/C 200/95)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice on 8 May 2001 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
H. Støvlbaek and J. Adda, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:
**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,**
**by order of that court of 4 April 2001, in the case of** —
declare that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
**Scandecor Development AB and others against Scandecor**
to comply with its obligations under Article 1(a) of
**Marketing AB and another**
Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on
waste( [1] ), as amended by Council Directive 91/156 EC of
**(Case C-195/01)** 18 March 1991( [2] ) and Commission Decision 94/3/EC of
20 December 1993 establishing a list of wastes pursuant
to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on
(2001/C 200/94) waste( [3] );

—
order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords of
4 April 2001, which was received at the Court Registry on
7 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Scandecor _Pleas in law and main arguments_
Development AB and others against Scandecor Marketing AB
and another, on the following questions: —
Although the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was obliged,
1. Is a trade mark to be regarded as liable to mislead the under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC, to
incorporate the European Waste Catalogue (EWC), forpublic within the meaning of article 12(2)(b) of Council
ming the subject-matter of Decision 94/3/EC, into its
Directive No 89/1104/EEC( [1] ) of 21 December 1988 to
national law, it has simply reproduced it in a ministerial
approximate the laws of the Member States relating to
circular which is binding on the administrative authorities
trade marks (the ‘Trade Marks Directive’) if the origin of
but not on third parties.
the goods denoted by the mark is a bare exclusive
licensee? —
At the same time, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
introduced a nomenclature applying purely to Luxem2. What are the criteria to be applied in determining whether bourg, which is totally different from the EWC. Various
a trading relationship comprises a single undertaking for operations in respect of which use of the EWC is
the purposes of the Trade Marks Directive? precluded are linked to the implementation of national
measures designed to transpose the Community legis3. Is a company a person for the purpose of article 6(1)(a) lation on waste. In addition, the coexistence of two lists
of the Trade Marks Directive? (the Luxembourg nomenclature and the EWC) between