Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 47/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 21.2.2004

Regulation (EC) No 241/1999 of 25 January 1999 (OJ
1999 L 27, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the
Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and P. Jann, Judges; D. RuizJarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 7 January 2004, in which it has ruled:

1. _Articles 2 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of_
_22 December 1994 laying down measures concerning the entry_
_into the Community and the export and re-export from the_
_Community of goods infringing certain intellectual property_
_rights, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 241/1999_
_of 25 January 1999, are applicable to situations in which_
_goods in transit between two countries not belonging to the_
_European Community are temporarily detained in a Member_
_State by the customs authorities of that State._

2. _The duty to interpret national law so as to be compatible with_
_Community law, in the light of its wording and purpose, in_
_order to attain the aim pursued by the latter, cannot, of itself_
_and independently of a law adopted by a Member State, have_
_the effect of determining or aggravating the liability in criminal_
_law of an entity which has failed to meet the requirements of_
_Regulation No 3295/94._

( [1] ) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Fifth Chamber)**

**of 7 January 2004**

**in Case C-100/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from**
**the Bundesgerichtshof): Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH &**
**Co. v Putsch GmbH** ( [1] )

_**(Directive 89/104/EEC — Limitation of the effects of a trade**_
_**mark in relation to indications concerning geographical**_
_**origin — Use of a geographical indication as a trade mark**_
_**as an element of use in accordance with ‘honest practices in**_
_**industrial or commercial matters’)**_

(2004/C 47/13)

_(Language of the case: German)_

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

In Case C-100/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. and Putsch GmbH, on the

interpretation of Article 6(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/
104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of
the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40,
p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting
for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans
and D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 January 2004, in which
it has ruled:

_Article 6(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 Decem-_
_ber 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to_
_trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that, where there exists a_
_likelihood of aural confusion between a word mark registered in one_
_Member State and an indication, in the course of trade, of the_
_geographical origin of a product originating in another Member_
_State, the proprietor of the trade mark may, pursuant to Article 5 of_
_Directive 89/104, prevent the use of the indication of geographical_
_origin only if that use is not in accordance with honest practices in_
_industrial or commercial matters. It is for the national court to carry_
_out an overall assessment of all the circumstances of the particular_
_case in that regard._

( [1] ) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Fifth Chamber)**

**of 7 January 2004**

**in Case C-201/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from**
**the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s**
**Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen on**
**the application of Delena Wells v Secretary of State for**
**Transport, Local Government and the Regions** ( [1] )

_**(Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of**_
_**certain projects on the environment — National measure**_
_**granting consent for mining operations without an environ-**_
_**mental impact assessment being carried out — Direct effect**_
_**of directives Triangular situation)**_

(2004/C 47/14)

_(Language of the case: English)_

In Case C-201/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s

21.2.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 47/9

Bench Division (Administrative Court), for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between The
Queen on the application of Delena Wells and Secretary of
State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, on
the interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June
1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public
and private projects on the environment, the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La
Pergola, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
7 January 2004, in which it has ruled:

1. _Article 2(1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June_
_1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and_
_private projects on the environment, read in conjunction with_
_Article 4(2) thereof, is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the_
_context of applying provisions such as section 22 of the_
_Planning and Compensation Act 1991 and Schedule 2 to that_
_Act, the decisions adopted by the competent authorities, whose_
_effect is to permit the resumption of mining operations,_
_comprise, as a whole, a ‘development consent’ within the_
_meaning of Article 1(2) of that directive, so that the competent_
_authorities are obliged, where appropriate, to carry out an_
_assessment of the environmental effects of such operations._

_In a consent procedure comprising several stages, that assess-_
_ment must, in principle, be carried out as soon as it is possible_
_to identify and assess all the effects which the project may have_
_on the environment._

2. _In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, an_
_individual may, where appropriate, rely on Article 2(1) of_
_Directive 85/337, read in conjunction with Articles 1(2) and_
_4(2) thereof._

3. _Under Article 10 EC the competent authorities are obliged to_
_take, within the sphere of their competence, all general or_
_particular measures for remedying the failure to carry out an_
_assessment of the environmental effects of a project as provided_
_for in Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337._

_The detailed procedural rules applicable in that context are a_
_matter for the domestic legal order of each Member State, under_
_the principle of procedural autonomy of the Member States,_
_provided that they are not less favourable than those governing_
_similar domestic situations (principle of equivalence) and that_
_they do not render impossible in practice or excessively difficult_
_the exercise of rights conferred by the Community legal order_
_(principle of effectiveness)._

_In that regard, it is for the national court to determine whether_
_it is possible under domestic law for a consent already granted_
_to be revoked or suspended in order to subject the project to an_
_assessment of its environmental effects, in accordance with the_
_requirements of Directive 85/337, or alternatively, if the_
_individual so agrees, whether it is possible for the latter to claim_
_compensation for the harm suffered._

( [1] ) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Fifth Chamber)**

**of 11 December 2003**

**in Case C-289/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from**
**the Oberlandesgericht München): AMOK Verlags GmbH**
**v A & R Gastronomie GmbH** ( [1] )

_**(Freedom to provide services — Lawyer established in**_
_**one Member State working in conjunction with a lawyer**_
_**established in another Member State — Legal costs to be**_
_**reimbursed by the unsuccessful party in a dispute to the**_
_**successful party Limitation)**_

(2004/C 47/15)

_(Language of the case: German)_

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

In Case C-289/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between AMOK Verlags GmbH and A & R Gastronomie
GmbH, on the interpretation of Articles 12 EC and 49 EC, the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),
acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola
and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; M.F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 11 December 2003, in which it has ruled:

1. _Article 49 EC, Article 50 EC and Council Directive 77/249/_
_EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by_
_lawyers of freedom to provide services must be interpreted as not_
_precluding a judicial rule of a Member State limiting to the_
_level of the fees which would have resulted from representation_
_by a lawyer established in that State the reimbursement, by an_
_unsuccessful party in a dispute to the successful party, of costs_
_in respect of the services provided by a lawyer established in_
_another Member State._

2. _Article 49 EC and Directive 77/249 must, however, be_
_construed as precluding a judicial rule of a Member State which_
_provides that the successful party to a dispute, in which that_
_party has been represented by a lawyer established in another_
_Member State, cannot recover from the unsuccessful party, in_
_addition to the fees of that lawyer, the fees of a lawyer practising_
_before the court seised of the dispute who, under the national_
_legislation in question, was required to work in conjunction_
_with the first lawyer._

( [1] ) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.