Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 108/12 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 7.4.2001

Must Article 3(a) and (b) of the Treaty of Rome, the first recital **Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de**
in the preamble to, and Article 3(2) of, Directive 92/12 of **Grande Instance (Regional Court), Paris (31st Chamber)**
25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products **by judgment of that court of 19 February 2001 in the case**
subject to excise duty( [1] ), and the sixth and eighth recitals in **of Ministère Public against John Greenham and Léonard**
the preamble to Directive 92/81 of 19 October 1992 on the **Abel**
harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral
oils( [2] ) be interpreted as precluding the French Republic
from refusing to reimburse the domestic duty on petroleum **(Case C-95/01)**
products (TIPP) paid by a trader in petroleum products
following the failure by one of his customers to make payment?
(2001/C 108/19)

( [1] ) Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the
holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
L 76, 23.03.1992, p. 1). European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
( [2] ) Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmon- Grande Instance (Regional Court), Paris (31st Chamber) of
isation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 19 February 2001, received at the Court Registry on 27 FebruL 316, 31.10.1992, p. 12). ary 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère
Public against John Greenham and Léonard Abel on the
following question:

Must Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty be interpreted as
prohibiting a Member State from preventing the free movement and marketing of a food supplement lawfully sold in
**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de** another Member State?
**cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber,**
**by judgment of that court of 13 February 2001 in the case**
**of SARL, Borie Manoux v Directeur de l’Institut national**
**de la propriété industrielle (INPI)**

**(Case C-81/01)**

(2001/C 108/18)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
**Action brought on 27 February 2001 by the Commission**
European Communities by a judgment of the French Cour de
**of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy**
cassation (Court of Cassation), Commercial, Financial and
**of Luxembourg**
Economic Chamber, of 13 February 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 16 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of SARL Borie Manoux v Directeur de l’Institut
**(Case C-97/01)**
national de la propriété industrielle (INPI) on the following
question:

(2001/C 108/20)
Must Article 40 of Regulation No 2392/89( [1] ) be interpreted
as prohibiting the registration as a trade mark, for the products
covered by the regulation, of a geographical reference the use An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
of which is not provided for by Article 11, even where the brought before the Court of Justice on 27 February 2001 by
registration of such a trade mark is not likely to mislead the the Commission of the European Communities, represented
consumer as to the provenance of the wine and does not by S. Rating and F. Siredey-Garnier, acting as Agents, with an
give rise to any confusion with a registered geographical address for service in Luxembourg.
designation, in so far as such registration might suggest that
the geographical reference in question, which relates to the
region where that wine is actually produced but which covers
The applicant claims that the Court should:
other designations of origin, is protected?

—
declare that, by failing to ensure the transposition in
( [1] ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July 1989 laying practice of Article 4d of Directive 90/388/EEC( [1] ), as
down general rules for the description and presentation of wines amended by Directive 96/19/EC( [2] ), the Grand Duchy of
and grape musts (OJ L 232, 9.8.1989, p. 13).
Luxembourg has failed to comply with its obligations;

—
order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.