Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

6.3.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/11

**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der**
**Nederlanden by order of that Court of 19 December 2003**
**in the case of 1. ROCHE NEDERLAND B.V., 2. ROCHE**
**DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS INC., 3. N.V. ROCHE S.A.,**
**4. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE ACTIEN-GESELLSCHAFT,**
**5. PRODUITS ROCHE S.A., 6. ROCHE PRODUCTS LIM-**
**ITED, 7. F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE A.G., 8. HOFFMANN-**
**LA ROCHE WIEN GMBH, and 9. ROCHE AB against**
**Dr. Frederick James PRIMUS, 2. Dr. Milton David GOLD-**
**ENBERG**

**(Case C-539/03)**

(2004/C 59/18)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 19 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on 22 December
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1. ROCHE
NEDERLAND B.V., 2. ROCHE DIAGNOSTIC SYSTEMS INC.,
3. N.V. ROCHE S.A., 4. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE ACTIENGESELLSCHAFT, 5. PRODUITS ROCHE S.A., 6. ROCHE
PRODUCTS LIMITED, 7. F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE A.G.,
8. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE WIEN GMBH, and 9. ROCHE AB
against Dr. Frederick James PRIMUS, 2. Dr. Milton David
GOLDENBERG on the following questions:

A. Is there a connection, as required for the application of
point 1 of Article 6 of the Brussels Convention, between
a patent infringement action brought by a holder of a
European patent against a defendant having its registered
office in the State of the court in which the proceedings
are brought, on the one hand, and against various
defendants having their registered offices in Contracting
States other than that of the State of the court in which
the proceedings are brought, on the other hand, who,
according to the patent holder, are infringing that patent
in one or more other Contracting States?

B. If the answer to Question A is not or not unreservedly in
the affirmative, in what circumstances is such a connection deemed to exist, and is it relevant in this context
whether, for example,

—
the defendants form part of one and the same group
of companies?

—
the defendants are acting together on the basis of a
common policy, and if so is the place from which
that policy originates relevant?

—
the alleged infringing acts of the various defendants
are the same or virtually the same?

**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster**
**Gerichtshof of the Republic of Austria by order of that**
**court of 18 November 2003 in the case of Lambert**
**Roodbeen against the Republic of Austria**

**(Case C-541/03)**

(2004/C 59/19)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
(Supreme Court) of the Republic of Austria of 18 November
2003, received at the Court Registry on 23 December 2003,
for a preliminary ruling in case of Lambert Roodbeen against
the Republic of Austria on the following question:

Are Articles 8 and 9 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of
25 February 1964 on the co-ordination of special measures
concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals
which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security
or public health (‘the directive’) ( [1] ) to be interpreted as meaning
that the administrative authorities — notwithstanding an
internal appeal facility — may not, save in cases of urgency,
take a decision ordering expulsion from the territory without
obtaining an opinion from a competent authority within the
meaning of Article 9(1) of the directive (for which no provision
is made in the Austrian legal system), where appeals against
their decisions may be lodged with the courts of public law
only subject to the limitations that:

(a) such appeals have no suspensory effect from the outset;

(b) those courts are barred from taking decisions on appropriateness and are able merely to annul (quash) contested
decisions;

(c) one of those courts (the Verwaltungsgerichtshof —
the Higher Administrative Court) is limited, as regards
findings of fact, to an examination of whether the
conclusions based on the facts are warranted; and

(d) the other of those courts (the Verfassungsgerichtshof —
the Constitutional Court), in addition to being limited, as
regards the facts, to an examination of whether the
conclusions based on the facts are warranted, is limited
to an examination of the infringement of rights guaranteed by the constitution?

( [1] ) OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 117.