Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 304/2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 13.12.2003

Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
(EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1),
and on the interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC, the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans,
President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of
the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von
Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in which it
has ruled:

1. _Consideration of the first part of the question has disclosed no_
_factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 22(1)(c)(i)_
_of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June_
_1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed_
_persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their_
_families moving within the Community, as amended and_
_updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December_
_1996._

2. _The second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Regulation_
_No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/_
_97, must be interpreted as meaning that the authorisation to_
_which that provision refers may not be refused where it is_
_apparent, first, that the treatment in question is among the_
_benefits provided for by the legislation of the Member State on_
_whose territory the person concerned resides and, secondly, that_
_treatment which is the same or equally effective cannot be_
_obtained without undue delay in that Member State._

3. _Articles 49 EC and 50 EC must be interpreted as not precluding_
_legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main_
_proceedings, which, first, makes reimbursement of the cost of_
_hospital care provided in a Member State other than that in_
_which the insured person’s sickness fund is established con-_
_ditional upon prior authorisation by that fund and, secondly,_
_makes the grant of that authorisation subject to the condition_
_that it be established that the insured person could not receive_
_within the territory of the Member State where the fund is_
_established the treatment appropriate to his condition. However,_
_authorisation may be refused on that ground only if treatment_
_which is the same or equally effective for the patient can be_
_obtained without undue delay in the territory of the Member_
_State in which he resides._

( [1] ) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**of 23 October 2003**

**in Case C-191/01 P: Office for Harmonisation in the**
**Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v**
**Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company** ( [1] )

_**(Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC)**_
_**No 40/94 — Absolute ground for refusal to register —**_
_**Distinctive character — Marks consisting exclusively of**_
_**descriptive signs or indications — Doublemint)**_

(2003/C 304/03)

_(Language of the case: English)_

In Case C-191/01 P, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: V. Melgar
and S. Laitinen), with an address for service in Luxembourg,
supported by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: A. Dittrich
and B. Muttelsee-Schön) with an address for service in
Luxembourg, and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (Agent: J. E. Collins, assisted by D. Alexander)
with an address for service in Luxembourg: Appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Second Chamber) of 31 January 2001 in Case
T-193/99 Wrigley v OHIM (DOUBLEMINT) [2001] ECR II417, seeking to have that judgment set aside, in which the
Court of First Instance annulled the decision of the First Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 June 1999 (Case R
216/1998-1) dismissing the appeal brought by Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company against the refusal to register the word
DOUBLEMINT as a Community trade mark, the other party to
the proceedings being: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, established
in Chicago, Illinois (United States of America), represented by
M. Kinkeldey, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President,
P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,
A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen,
F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in which it:

1. _Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the_
_European Communities of 31 January 2001 in Case T-193/_
_99 Wrigley v OHIM (DOUBLEMINT);_

13.12.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 304/3

2. _Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;_

3. _Reserves the costs._

( [1] ) OJ C 200 of 14.07.2001.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Fifth Chamber)**

**of 23 October 2003**

**in Case C-245/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from**
**the** **Niedersächsisches** **Oberverwaltungsgericht):** **RTL**
**Television GmbH v Niedersächsische Landesmedienan-**
**stalt für privaten Rundfunk** ( [1] )

_**(Directive 89/552/EEC — Article 11(3) — Television broad-**_
_**casting — Television advertising — Advertising breaks in**_
_**audiovisual works — Definition of ‘series’)**_

(2003/C 304/04)

_(Language of the case: German)_

_(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published_
_in the European Court Reports)_

In Case C-245/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between RTL Television GmbH and Niedersächsische Landesmedienanstalt für privaten Rundfunk, on the
interpretation of Article 11(3) of Council Directive 89/552/
EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain
provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television
broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), as amended by
Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 30 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60), the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans
(Rapporteur), President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and P. Jann,
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
23 October 2003, in which it has ruled:

1. _Films which have been made for television and which provide,_
_from their conception, for breaks for the insertion of advertising_
_are covered by the term ‘films made for television’ in_
_Article 11(3) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October_
_1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by_
_law, regulation or administrative action in Member States_
_concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as_
_amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament_
_and of the Council of 30 June 1997._

2. _The connections which must link films in order that they can_
_come within the exception laid down for ‘series’ by Article 11(3)_
_of Directive 89/552 must relate to the content of the films_
_concerned, such as, for example, the development of the same_
_story from one episode to another or the reappearance of one or_
_more characters in different episodes._

( [1] ) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**of 21 October 2003**

**In Joined Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01 (Reference for a**
**preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwer-**
**pen): Belgische Staat v Eugene Van Calster, Felix Cleeren**
**(C-261/01) and between Belgische Staat and Openbaar**
**Slachthuis NV (C-262/01)** ( [1] )

_**(Aid financed by parafiscal charges — Compulsory charges**_
_**to finance a fund for animal health and livestock production**_
_**— Retroactive effect of the charges — Validity of a**_
_**Commission decision concerning State aid — Powers of the**_
_**Commission)**_

(2003/C 304/05)

_(Language of the case: Dutch)_

_(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published_
_in the European Court Reports)_

In Joined Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01: Reference to the
Court under Article 234 EC by the Hof van Beroep te
Antwerpen (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Belgische Staat and
Eugene Van Calster, Felix Cleeren (C-261/01) and between
Belgische Staat and Openbaar Slachthuis NV (C-262/01), on
the interpretation of Community law, in particular of
Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88 EC) and Article 173
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC) and
of the Commission Decision of 9 August 1996 relating to aid
measure No N 366/96, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris,
President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas (Presidents of
Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,
R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 October 2003, in which
it has ruled: