Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

No C 108 / 14 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 5 . 4 . 97

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Retten i Aalborg,
by a letter of 7 February 1997 in the case of Foreningen af
danske Videogramdistributorer, acting for Egmont Film
A / S, Buena Vista Home Entertainment A / S, Scanbox
Danmark A / S, Metronome Video A / S, Polygram Records
A / S, Nordisk Film Video A / S, Irish Video A / S and Warner
Home Video Inc ., v. Laserdisken, in the person of Hans
Kristian Pedersen, Interveners : Sammenslutningen af Dan ­
ske Filminstruktorer, Michael Viuf Christiansen, Pioneer

Electronics Denmark A / S and Videoforhandler Ove Jensen

( Case C-61 / 97 )

( 97 / C 108 / 25 )

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by letter of 7 February 1997 from
Retten i Aalborg ( Aalborg Court ), which was received at
the Court Registry on 12 February 1997, for a preliminary
ruling in the case between Foreningen af danske Video ­
gramdistributorer ( Association of Danish Video
Distributors ), acting for Egmont Film A / S and Others, and
Laserdisken, in the person of Hans Kristian Pedersen,
Interveners : Sammenslutningen af Danske Filminstruktorer

( Union of Danish Film Directors ) and Others on the
following questions :

Do Article 30 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with
Article 36, or Articles 85 to 86 preclude a person to
whom the holder of the exclusive rights to a film has
transferred an exclusive manufacturing and distribution
right in respect of copies of the film in one Member State
from giving consent to the rental of his own releases while
at the same time preventing the rental of imported releases
which have been placed on the market in another Member

State, where the holder of exclusive manufacturing and
distribution rights in copies of the film has transferred
ownership of copies with tacit acceptance that the copies
will be rented out in that latter Member State ?

In view of the fact that Council Directive 92 / 100 / EEC ( ] )
of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right
and on certain rights relating to copyright in the field of
intellectual property has entered into force, the same
question is repeated on the basis that the Directive is
applicable to the reply .

Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 12 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Julian Currall, acting as
Agent, and Denis Waelbroeck, acting as advocate, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C.
Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre .

The appellant claims that the Court should :

— annul the judgment delivered on 12 December 1996

by the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T  - 33 / 95, Maria Lidia Lozano
Palacios v. Commission of the European Communities,
inasmuch as it was held in that judgment that the
respondent to the appeal was entitled to the
installation allowance provided for by the first
subparagraph of Article 5 ( 1 ) of Annex VII to the Staff
Regulations merely because she was in receipt of the
expatriation allowance,

— make an appropriate order as to costs .

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support :

The Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that
the mere fact that the respondent to the appeal was
entitled to an expatriation allowance — because,
technically, she fulfilled the conditions laid down in
Article 4 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations —
meant that she satisfied, de facto, the conditions rendering
her eligible for the installation allowance . The
Commission considers that it is clear from the wording of
Article 71 of the Staff Regulations, from the heading
under which that article appears in the Staff Regulations
and from the title of Section 3 of Annex VII, of which the
first subparagraph of Article 5 ( 1 ) forms part, that, like
the other allowances covered by Section 3, the installation
allowance is not a sum automatically added to the salary
of the person concerned but is intended to cover expenses
actually incurred or which may be incurred . The effect
and purpose of the installation allowance also militate in
favour of that interpretation .

(') OJ No L 346, 27 . 11 . 1992, p . 61 . Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden, by judgment of that court of 7 February

1997 in the case of 1 . Bayerische Motorenwerke AG and

2 . BMW Nederland BV v. Ronald Karel Deenik

( Case C-63 / 97 )

Appeal brought on 12 February 1997 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the judgment ( 97 / C 108 / 27 )
delivered on 12 December 1996 by the Second Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Reference has been made to the
Communities in Case T-33 / 95 between Maria Lidia European Communities by judgment
Lozano Palacios and the Commission of the European der Nederlanden Court of

Communities

( Case C-62 / 97 P

( 97 / C 108 / 26 )

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December

1996 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-33 / 95

between Maria Lidia Lozano Palacios and the

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ), of
7 February 1997, which was received at the Court
Registry on 13 February 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of 1 . Bayerische Motorenwerke AG and 2 . BMW
Nederland BV v. Ronald Karel Deenik on the following

questions :

( a ) In view of the fact that, with regard to the rights

associated with a trade mark, Directive 89 / 104 / EEC ( J )
contains a transitional legal provision only for the