Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

10.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 79/19

**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep** The Applicant claims that the Court should:
**te Brussel by order of 15 January 2001 in the case of NV**

—
**Robelco and NV Robeco Groep** declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
European Parliament and Council Directive 98/4/EC( [1] ) of
**(Case C-23/01)** 16 February 1998 amending Directive 93/38/EEC( [2] )
coordinating the procurement procedures of entities
operating in the water, energy, transport and telecom(2001/C 79/34)
munications sectors or by failing to adopt the measures
to comply with it, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 2(1) of the said Directive;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 15 January 2001 by the —
order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Court of Appeal, Brussels), which
was received at the Court Registry on 22 January 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of NV Robelco and NV Robeco
_Pleas in law and main arguments_
Groep on the following questions:

— Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
Must Article 5(5) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC
a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the
upon each Member State carries by implication an obligation
Member States relating to trade marks be interpreted
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
as meaning that the possibility laid down therein for
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 16 February
protection by Member States can be afforded only against
1999 without the United Kingdom having enacted the prothe use of a sign which is identical to the trade mark or
visions necessary to comply with the directive referred to in
can it also be afforded in that case against the use of a
the conclusions of the Commission.
sign similar to the trade mark?

— If that protection can also be afforded against a sign ( [1] ) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998, p. 1.
similar to the trade mark, does unlawful similarity within ( [2] ) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84.
the meaning of the abovementioned article require that
confusion can arise as a consequence or is likelihood of
association sufficient, in the sense that in the minds of
those confronted by the trade mark and the sign one
will suggest the other without any confusion resulting
therefrom, or must no likelihood of association at all
exist in this respect?
**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema**
**di Cassazione — Sezione Tributaria by order of that court**
**of 12 July 2000 in the case of Enirisorse SpA against**
**Ministero delle Finanze**

**(Case C-34/01 to C-38/01)**

(2001/C 79/36)

**Action brought on 24 January 2001 by the Commission of**
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
**the European Communities against the United Kingdom**
European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di
Cassazione — Sezione Tributaria (Supreme Court of Cassation,
Tax Chamber) of 12 July 2000, which was received at the
**(Case C-31/01)**
Court Registry on 25 January 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Enirisorse SpA against Ministero delle Finanze
(2001/C 79/35) on the following questions:

1. Does allocation to a public undertaking — operating in
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the the market for dockside unloading and loading of goods
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 January — of a significant proportion of a charge (port charge on
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities, loading and unloading goods) paid to the State by
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal operators which have not obtained any services from that
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in undertaking, constitute a special or exclusive right or a
Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Go´mez de la Cruz, measure contrary to the rules of the Treaty, in particular
member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Centre the rules on competition, within the meaning of Article
Wagner. 90(1) of the Treaty?