Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 131/2 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 1.6.2002

3. _The_ _Parliament’s_ _application_ _for_ _the_ _Court_ _to_ _order_ **Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespa-**
_Mr Panichelli to bear his own costs at first instance in Case_ **tentgericht by order of that Court of 22 January 2002**
_T-130/98 is rejected._ **in the administrative appeal brought by Heidelberger**
**Bauchemie GmbH**

( [1] ) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
**(Case C-49/02)**

(2002/C 131/04)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
**ORDER OF THE COURT** European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht
(Federal Patents Court) (Germany) of 22 January 2002, received
at the Court Registry on 20 February 2002, for a preliminary
**(Fourth Chamber)** ruling in the administrative appeal brought by Heidelberger
Bauchemie GmbH on the following questions:

**of 14 March 2002**

For the purposes of registration as a trade mark, do colours or
**in Joined Cases C-250/01 P and C-251/01 P: Mario Costac-** combinations of colours claimed in the abstract, without
**urta v Commission of the European Communities** ( [1] ) delineation and in hues which are indicated by a colour sample
(colour specimen), named in words and identified under a
recognised colour classification system fulfil the requirements
_**(Appeals — Application of Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff**_ for ability to constitute a trade mark laid down in Article 2 of
_**Regulations — Re-posting of the applicant to a non-Member**_ First Council Directive 89/104/EEC( [1] ) of 21 December 1988
_**State — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Appeal**_ to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
_**manifestly unfounded and inadmissible — Costs)**_ marks?

(2002/C 131/03)
In particular, for the purposes of Article 2 of the directive, is
such an ‘(abstract) colour mark’
_(Language of the case: French)_
a) a sign,

_(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published_
b) sufficiently distinctive to be capable of indicating origin,
_in the European Court Reports)_

c) capable of being represented graphically?

In Joined Cases C-250/01 P and C-251/01 P: Mario Costacurta, ( [1] ) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1.
a former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing at Luxembourg, represented by M. Petit,
lawyer — two appeals against the orders of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities, Second Chamber, of
7 June 2001 in Case T-328/00 Costacurta v Commission, not
published in the European Court Reports, seeking to have
those orders set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht**
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall,
**Eisenstadt by order of that Court of 17 January 2002 in**
assisted by B. Wägenbaur) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
**the private prosecutions brought by Montres Rolex S.A.**
composed of S. von Bahr, President of Chamber, **and Others**
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges; D. RuizJarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made
an order on 14 March 2002, the operative part of which is as **(Case C-60/02)**
follows:

(2002/C 131/05)
1. _The appeals are dismissed._

2. _Mr Costacurta shall bear the costs._
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht Eisenstadt (Regional Court, Eisenstadt) of 17 January 2002, received
( [1] ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
at the Court Registry on 25 February 2002, for a preliminary
ruling in the private prosecutions brought by Montres Rolex
S.A. and Others, on the following question:

1.6.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 131/3

Is a provision of national law, in casu Paragraph 60(1) and (2) **Action brought on 13 March 2002 by the Commission of**
of the Markenschutzgesetz (Austrian Law on the Protection of **the European Communities against the Federal Republic**
Trademarks), in conjunction with Paragraph 10a thereof, **of Germany**
which may be interpreted as meaning that the mere transit of
goods manufactured/distributed in contravention of provisions
**(Case C-86/02)**
of the law on trademarks is not punishable under criminal law,
contrary to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/
94( [1] ) of 22 December 1994 laying down measures to prohibit (2002/C 131/07)
the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a
suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods, as
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 241/1999( [2] ) of
25 January 1999?
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 March 2002 by the Commission of the European
( [1] ) OJ L 341, p. 8. Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
( [2] ) OJ L 27, p. 1. Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, C 254,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by adopting Paragraph 1(6) and Paragraph 1.44 of the SprengA [¨ ] ndG 1997 of 23 June 1998,
**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie**
the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
**by judgment of that Court of 28 February 2002 in the**
obligations, imposed on it by the first paragraph of
**case of Agence Maritime Lalemant against 1. Malzfabrik**
Article 10 and the third paragraph of Article 249 of the
**Tivoli GmbH, 2. Malteurop G.I.E, 3. Belgische Interventie-**
EC Treaty, to comply with Directive 93/15/EEC( [1] ) and
**en Restitutiebureau and Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH against**
has failed to comply with its obligations arising from the
**Belgische Interventie- en Restitutiebureau**
first paragraph of Article 226 of the EC Treaty;

**(Case C-82/02)** (2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(2002/C 131/06)

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Cassatie The Commission objects to the provision whereby explosives,
(Belgian Court of Cassation) of 28 February 2002, received at apart from those intended for export to, or introduction into,
the Court Registry on 12 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling another Member State, may only be used or relinquished to
in the case of Agence Maritime Lalemant against 1. Malzfabrik others if they bear an identification mark issued by the
Tivoli GmbH, 2. Malteurop G.I.E, 3. Belgische Interventie- en Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM)
Restitutiebureau and Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH against Belgische (Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing). The fact
Interventie- en Restitutiebureau on the following question: that, as a result of provisional measures taken by the BAM,
that obstacle to trade no longer exists is not enough to cure
the infringement of Community law.

Must Article 9(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2730/
79( [1] ) of 29 November 1979 laying down common detailed
The transitional provision contained in Paragraph 1.44 of the
rules for the application of the system of export refunds on
German statute could lead to serious distortions of the internal
agricultural products be interpreted as meaning that goods
market, since explosives which may be freely placed on the
exported to non-member countries and in respect of which
market within the Community pursuant to the provisions of
customs export formalities have been completed are to be
the directive are not permitted on the German market, whereas
regarded as having left the geographical territory of the
explosives which should no longer feature on the market after
Community when they actually leave the territory of the
the expiry of the transitional period might be allowed in
Community or when they are placed in a customs warehouse?
Germany.

( [1] ) OJ L 317, 1979, p. 1. ( [1] ) OJ L 121 of 15.5.1993, p. 20.