CELEX: C1995/248/12
Language: en
Date: 1995-09-23 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 29 June 1995 in the case of Sabel BV v. Puma AG (Case C-251/95)

No C 248/6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       23 . 9 . 95
If that question is answered in the affirmative, the following           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat
question is referred to the Court of Justice of the European             du Grand-duche de Luxembourg, Comite du Contentieux
Communities for a preliminary ruling:                                    by judgment of that court of 12 July 1995 in the case of
                                                                         Futura Participations SA and Singer against Administration
'In the case of a request that candidates be proposed for                                        des Contributions
posts in the administration of the Commission of the                                               ( Case C-250/95 )
European Communities, made during a meeting between
the Permanent Representatives and the Secretary:General of                                            ( 95/C 248/ 11 )
the Commission and directly addressed to the Member
States with no other form of publicity, or outhwith a                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
recruitment procedure published in the Official Journal of               European Communities by a judgment of the Conseil d'Etat
the European Communities, is such a request valid,                       du Grand-duche de Luxembourg, Comite du Contentieux
particularly having regard to the rules governing the                    ( Council of State of the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg,
recruitment of members of the temporary staff and officials              Judicial Division ) of 12 July 1995 , which was received at the
of the Commission ?'                                                     Court Registry on 19 July 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                         the case of Futura Participations SA and Singer against
                                                                         Administration des Contributions on the following
                                                                         question :
                                                                         Are Article 157 of the Law on income tax and, in so far as is
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwal­                  necessary, Article 4 and the second subparagraph of
tungsgerichtNordrhein- Westfalen by orders of that court of              Article 24 ( 2 ) of the France-Luxembourg Convention on
29 May 1995 in the cases of Firirta SAM Schiffahrt GmbH v.               double taxation compatible with Article 52 of the EC Treaty
Federal Republic of Germany and Heinz Stapf v. Federal                   inasmuch as they make the application to non-resident
                        Republic of Germany                              taxpayers having a permanent business'in Luxembourg of
                ( Cases C-248/95 and C-249/95 )                          provisions on the carrying forward of losses subject to the
                                                                         condition that the losses should be related to income
                              ( 95/C 248/10
                                                                         received locally and that accounts should be duly made up
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                          and kept within the country ?
of the European Communities by orders of the
 Oberverwaltungsgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen ( Higher
Administrative Court, North Rhine Westphalia ) of 29 May
 1995 , which were received at the Court Registry on 19 July
 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Firma SAM               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes­
Schiffahrt GmbH v. Federal Republic of Germany and                       gerichtshof by order of that court of 29 June 1995 in the
                                                                                           case of Sabel BY v. Puma AG
Heinz Stapf v. Federal Republic of Germany on the
following questions :                                                                               ( Case C-251/95 )
                                                                                                       ( 95/C 248/12 )
 1 . was     the adoption of Council Regulation ( EEC )
       No    1101 /89 (*), Commission Regulation ( EEC )                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       No   1102/89 ( 2 ) and Commission Regulation ( EEC )               European Communities by an order of the First Civil Senate
       No   3685/89 ( 3 ) appropriate within the meaning of               of the Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of Justice ) of
       Article 75 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty ?                          29 June 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                          20 July 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sabel BV
 2 . If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, can those         v. Puma AG on the following questions :
       regulations become invalid if, subsequently to their
       adoption, they cease to be appropriate within the                  With reference to the interpretation of Article 4 ( 1 ) ( b )
       meaning of Article 75 ( 1 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty ?               of the First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to
                                                                          approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
 3 . If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, were the          marks ( 89/104/EEC ) ('):
       Regulations still appropriate at the relevant time for the
       levying of the 1990 contributions to the Scrapping                 is it sufficient for a finding that there is a risk of confusion
       Fund ?                                                             between a sign composed of text and picture and a sign
                                                                          consisting merely of a picture, which is registered for
 4. Does the obligation laid down in the Regulations to                   identical and similar goods and is not especially well known
       pay contributions for 1990 infringe fundamental                    in commerce, that the two signs coincide as to their
       Community rights or other Community law, in                        signification ( in this case, a leaping feline beast of prey )?
       particular the right to property, the right to pursue a
       trade or profession, the principle of equality and the             What is the significance in this connection of the wording of
       principle of proportionality ?                                     the Directive, according to which the risk of confusion
                                                                          includes the likelihood that a mark may be associated with
 0 ) OJ No L 116 , 28 . 4 . 1989 , p . 25 .                                an earlier mark ?
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 116 , 28 . 4 . 1989 , p . 30 .
 ( 3 ) OJ No L 360 , 9 . 12 . 1989 , p . 20 .                              (') OJ No L 40 , 11 . 2 . 1989 , p . 1 .