Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

21.4.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 118/7

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT** _particular Article 177 thereof (now Article 234 EC), the Court_
_of Justice has jurisdiction to interpret Article 50 of the TRIPs_
**of 14 December 2000** _Agreement._

2. _In a field to which the TRIPs Agreement applies and in respect_
**in Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98 (references for a** _of which the Community has already legislated, the judicial_
**preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank** _authorities of the Member States are required by virtue of_
**’s-Gravenhage and the Hoge Raad Der Nederlanden):** _Community law, when called upon to apply national rules with_
**Parfums Christian Dior SA v Tuk Consultancy BV** _a view to ordering provisional measures for the protection of_
**(C-300/98), and Assco Gerüste GmbH and Rob van Dijk,** _rights falling within such a field, to do so as far as possible in_
**trading as ‘Assco Holland Steigers Plettac Nederland’** _the light of the wording and purpose of Article 50 of the TRIPs_
**v Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV** _Agreement._
**(C-392/98)** ( [1] )
_In a field in which the Community has not yet legislated and_
_**(Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation —**_ _which consequently falls within the competence of the Member_
_**TRIPs Agreement — Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now**_ _States, the protection of intellectual property rights, and_
_**Article 234 EC) — Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice —**_ _measures adopted for that purpose by the judicial authorities,_
_**Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement — Provisional measures**_ _do not fall within the scope of Community law. Accordingly,_
_**— Interpretation — Direct effect)**_ _Community law neither requires nor forbids that the legal order_
_of a Member State should accord to individuals the right to rely_
_directly on the rule laid down by Article 50(6) of the TRIPs_
(2001/C 118/10)
_Agreement or that it should oblige the courts to apply that rule_
_of their own motion._

_(Language of the case: Dutch)_ 3. _Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement leaves to the Contracting_
_Parties, within the framework of their own legal systems, the_
_task of specifying whether the right to sue under general_
_(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published_ _provisions of national law concerning wrongful acts, in particu-_
_in the European Court Reports)_ _lar unlawful competition, in order to protect an industrial_
_design against copying is to be classified as an ‘Intellectual_
_property right’ within the meaning of Article 50(1) of the_
In Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98: references to the
_TRIPs Agreement._
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article
234 EC) from the Arrondissementsrechtbank ’s-Gravenhage
(Netherlands) (C-300/98) and the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden ( [1] ) OJ C 229 of 26.9.1998.
(Netherlands) (C-392/98) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before those courts between Parfums
Christian Dior SA and Tuk Consultancy BV (C-300/98) and
between Assco Gerüste GmbH and Rob van Dijk, trading as
‘Assco Holland Steigers Plettac Nederland’, and Wilhelm Layher
GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV (C-392/98) — on the
interpretation of Article 50 of the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, as set out in Annex 1 C **JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**
to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation,
approved on behalf of the Community, as regards matters
**of 14 December 2000**
within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of
22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 1) — the Court,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, **in Case C-344/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from**
A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of **the Supreme Court (Ireland)): Masterfoods Ltd v HB Ice**
Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, **Cream Ltd and HB Ice Cream Ltd v Masterfoods Ltd,**
P. Jann, L. Sevo´n, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; **trading as ‘Mars Ireland’** ( [1] )
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December 2000, in
_**(Competition — Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now**_
which it has ruled: _**Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) — Parallel proceedings before**_
_**national and Community courts)**_
1. _Where the judicial authorities of the Member States are called_
_upon to order provisional measures for the protection of_
(2001/C 118/11)
_intellectual property rights falling within the scope of the_
_Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property_
_Rights (the TRIPs Agreement), as set out in Annex 1 C to_
_(Language of the case: English)_
_the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation,_
_approved on behalf of the Community, as regards matters_
_within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of_ In Case C-344/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
_22 December 1994, and a case is brought before the Court of_ the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Supreme Court
_Justice in accordance with. the provisions of the EC Treaty, in_ (Ireland) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending

C 118/8 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21.4.2001

before that court between Masterfoods Ltd and HB Ice Cream **Ferdinando Pavan and Others v AIMA and the Ministry**
Ltd and between HB Ice Cream Ltd and Masterfoods Ltd, **of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-493/00);**
trading as ‘Mars Ireland’ — on the interpretation of Articles 85, **Associazione dei Produttori di Latte delle Terre del**
86 and 222 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and **Granducato ed altre Aziende v AIMA and the Ministry of**
295 EC), — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, **the Treasury, the Budget and Planning and the Regione**
President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and **Toscana (Case C-494/00); Associazione Agricola Produtto-**
V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, **ri Castellani s.c.a.r.l. and Others v AIMA and the Ministry**
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevo´n (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen **of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-496/00);**
and F. Macken, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; **Aziende Agricole Pietro Baita and Others v AIMA and**
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a **the** **Ministry** **of** **Agricultural** **and** **Forestry** **Policy**
judgment on 14 December 2000, in which it has ruled: **(C-500/00), and Giorgio Accarini and Others v AIMA and**
**the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning**
**(C-21/01)**

_Where a national court is ruling on an agreement or practice the_
_compatibility of which with Articles 85(1) and 86 of the EC Treaty_
_(now Articles 81(1) EC and Article 82 EC) is already the subject of_
_a Commission decision, it cannot take a decision running counter to_
**(Cases C-483/00, C-485/00 to C-488/00, C-492/00 to**
_that of the Commission, even if the latter’s decision conflicts with a_
**C-494/00, C-496/00, C-500/00 and C-21/01)**
_decision given by a national court of first instance. If the addressee of_
_the Commission decision has, within the period prescribed in the fifth_
_paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,_
_the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC), brought an action for_
_annulment of that decision, it is for the national court to decide_
_whether to stay proceedings pending final judgment in that action for_
_annulment or in order to refer a question to the Court for a_
_preliminary ruling._ (2001/C 118/12)

( [1] ) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.

References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of 6 July 2000 of the
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
ruling in the cases of Azienda Agricola Nardoni di Benedetto
Nardoni v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato
Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget
and Planning (Case C-483/00); Azienda Agricola Antonio
Tonon v AIMA, the other party being the Ministry of
the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-485/00); Azienda
Agricola Beniamino Brutti, by Mario Zanetti and Others v
AIMA, the other party being the Ministry of the Treasury,
the Budget and Planning (Case C-486/00), also Cooperativa
**References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale** Agricola Latte 2001 and Others; Cooperativa Nuova Latte s.r.l.
**Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by orders of that** v AIMA and the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy
**court of 6 July 2000 in the cases of Azienda Agricola** (C-487/00); Azienda Agricola Fermo and Gabriele Borini
**Nardoni di Benedetto Nardoni v Azienda di Stato per gli** (C-488/00); Giuseppe de Marchi and Others (C-492/00);
**Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry** Ferdinando Pavan and Others v AIMA and the Ministry of the
**of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-483/00);** Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-493/00); Associazione
**Azienda Agricola Antonio Tonon v AIMA, the other** dei Produttori di Latte delle Terre del Granducato ed altre
**party being the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and** Aziende v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget
**Planning (C-485/00); Azienda Agricola Beniamino Brutti,** and Planning and the Regione Toscana (Case C-494/00);
**by Mario Zanetti and Others v AIMA, the other party** Associazione Agricola Produttori Castellani s.c.a.r.l. and Others
**being the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and** v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and
**Planning (Case C-486/00), also Cooperativa Agricola Latte** Planning (C-496/00); Aziende Agricole Pietro Baita and Others
**2001 and Others; Cooperativa Nuova Latte s.r.l. v AIMA** v AIMA and the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy
**and the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy** (C-500/00), and Giorgio Accarini and Others v AIMA and the
**(C-487/00); Azienda Agricola Fermo and Gabriele Borini** Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-21/01)
**(C-488/00); Giuseppe de Marchi and Others (C-492/00);** on the following questions: