Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 264/18 EN Official Journal of the European Union 1.11.2003

7. Does the right of ownership set out in Article 1 of
Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human
Rights (The Rome Convention of 1950) and taken up in
Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union proclaimed in Nice in October 2000
also cover intellectual property in the names of the places
of origin of wines and the exploitation of those names,
and, consequently, does the principle expressed by that
law preclude application of the agreement set out in the
exchange of letters annexed to the Agreement between
the European Community and the Republic of Hungary
on reciprocal protection and control of wine names (OJ
1994 L 337), but not included in the body of that
agreement, under which wine-producers of the FriuliVenezia Giulia region are not permitted to use the name
‘Tocai Friulano’, particularly in view of the total lack of
any compensation to the wine-producers of Friuli-Venezia Giulia thus dispossessed, the lack of any general public
interest justifying their dispossession and the evident
disregard for the principle of proportionality?

8. In the event that it is held that the Community laws
contained in the Community Agreement between the
European Community and the Republic of Hungary on
the protection and control of wine names of 29 November 1993 (OJ 1993 L 337) and/or the exchange of letters
annexed thereto are unlawful to the extent described in
the preceding questions, must the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 ( [2] ), under which use of the
name ‘Tocai Friulano’ is to be prohibited after 31 March
2007 (Article 19(2)) be regarded as invalid and of no
effect?

( [1] ) Read: 23 November 1993.
( [2] ) OJ L 118 of 4.5.2002, p. 1.

**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht**
**Bochum by order of that Court of 29 July 2003 in the**
**proceedings between 1. MrsElisabeth Schulte, 2. MrWolf-**
**gang Schulte and Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG**

**(Case C-350/03)**

(2003/C 264/28)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landgericht Bochum
(Bochum Regional Court) of 29 July 2003, received at the
Court Registry on 11 August 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings between 1. Mrs Elisabeth Schulte, 2. Mr Wolfgang Schulte and Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG on the
following questions:

1. Does Article 3(2)(a) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC ( [1] )
of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect
of contracts negotiated away from business premises also
cover such contracts for the purchase of immovable
property which must be regarded as merely a component
of a credit-financed capital investment model and in the
case of which the contract negotiations conducted up to

the conclusion of the contract were held in a doorstepselling situation, as defined in Paragraph 1 of the Gesetz
über den Widerruf von Haustürgeschäften und ähnlichen
Geschäften (Law on the cancellation of doorstep transactions and analogous transactions), both as regards the
contract for the purchase of the immovable property
and the loan agreement serving solely to finance that
purchase?

2. Are the requirements of the rule concerning a high
level of protection in the field of consumer protection
(Article 95(3) EC) and the effectiveness of consumer
protection safeguarded by Directive 85/577/EEC satisfied
by a national legal system or the interpretation thereof
which limits merely to the reversal of the loan agreement
the legal effects of the revocation of the declaration of
intent to enter into a loan agreement, even in connection
with such capital investment models in which the loan
would not have been granted atall without the acquisition
of the immovable property?

3. Is a national rule on the legal effects of cancelling a loan
agreement to the effect that the cancelling consumer
must pay back the loan proceeds to the financing bank,
even though according to the plan drawn up for the
capital investment the loan serves solely to finance the
immovable property and is paid directly to the vendor of
the immovable property, consistent with the protective
purpose of the rule on cancellation laid down in
Article 5(2) of Directive 85/577/EEC?

4. Where a legal effect of cancellation, under national law,
results in the consumer being required, after declaring
cancellation, immediately to pay back — in accordance
with the plan drawn up for the capital investment — the
loan proceeds which have thus far not been redeemed at
all, plus interest thereon at the normal market rate, is this
effect contrary to the rule concerning a high level of
protection in the field of consumer protection
(Article 95(3) EC) and to the principle of the effectiveness
of consumer protection enshrined in Directive 85/577/
EEC?

( [1] ) OJ L 372, p. 31.

**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-**
**hof by order of that Court of 9 July 2003 in the case of**
**Dr Elisabeth Mayer against Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes**
**und der Länder**

**(Case C-356/03)**

(2003/C 264/29)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 9 July 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 18 August 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Dr Elisabeth Mayer against Versorgungsanstalt des
Bundes und der Länder on the following questions:

1.11.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 264/19

1. Do Article 119 of the EC Treaty and/or Article 11(2)(a)
of Directive 92/85/EEC ( [1] ) and Article 6(1)(g) of Directive
86/378/EEC ( [2] ), as amended by Directive 96/97/EC ( [3] ),
preclude provisions of statutes governing a supplementary occupational pension scheme of the kind at issue in
this case under which an employee, during statutory
maternity leave (in this case from 16 December 1992 to
5 April 1993 and from 17 January to 22 April 1994),
acquires no deferred rights to an insurance annuity which,
in the event of her early departure from the compulsory
insurance scheme, may be claimed monthly from the time
the insurance contingency (pensionable age, occupational
disability or invalidity) materialises, because the accrual of
such rights is conditional upon the employee’s receiving
taxable pay during the relevant period, but the benefits
paid to her during maternity leave do not constitute
taxable pay under the provisions of national law?

2. Is this the case in particular if account is taken of the fact
that the insurance annuity is not — like the occupational
pension which would be paid if the insurancecontingency
materialised whilst she was still in the compulsory
pension scheme — intended to cover the employee in
old age or in the event of invalidity but to reimburse the
contributions made in respect of her during the period of
compulsory insurance?

( [1] ) OJ L 348 [1992], p. 1.
( [2] ) OJ L 225 [1986], p. 40.
( [3] ) OJ L 46 [1997], p. 20.

**Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission**
**of the European Communities against the Republic of**
**Austria**

**(Case C-357/03)**

(2003/C 264/30)

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Denis Martin, Member of the
Legal Service of the European Commission, and Horstpeter
Kreppel, seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service within
the framework of an exchange with national officials, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by failing to adopt or at any rate to
notify the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary fully to comply with Council Directive 98/24/

EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and
safety of workers from the risks relatedto chemical agents
at work (14th individual Directive within the meaning of
Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) ( [1] ), the Republic
of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 14 of that directive;

2. Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
proceedings.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The period for transposition expired on 5 May 2001.

( [1] ) OJ 1998 L 131, p. 11.

**Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission**
**of the European Communities against the Republic of**
**Austria**

**(Case C-358/03)**

(2003/C 264/31)

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Denis Martin, Member of the
Legal Service of the European Commission, and Horstpeter
Kreppel, seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service within
the framework of an exchange with national officials, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by failing to adopt or at any rate to
notify the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary fully to comply with Council Directive 90/269/
EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum health and safety
requirements for the manual handling of loads where
there is a risk particularly of back injury to workers
(fourth individual Directive within the meaning of
Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) ( [1] ), the Republic
of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9
of that directive;

2. Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
proceedings.