CELEX: C1996/336/18
Language: en
Date: 1996-11-09 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 11 July 1996 in Case C-228/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division): Stanley Charles Atkins v. Wrekin District Council, Department of Transport (Equal treatment for men and women - Concessionary fares on public passenger transport services - Scope of Directive 79/7/EEC - Link with retirement age)

No C 336/ 10        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9 . 11 . 96
— it is shown that the repackaging cannot affect the                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
  original condition of the product inside the packaging;                                   of 11 July 1996
  such is the case, in particular, where the importer has
  merely carried out operations involving no risk of the           in Case C-228/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
  product being affected, such as, for example, the                the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's
  removal of blister packs from their original external            Bench Division ): Stanley Charles Atkins v. Wrekin District
  packaging and their insertion with one or more original                        Council, Department of Transport ( l )
  packages into new external packaging, or their insertion         (Equal treatment for men and women — Concessionary
  in another original package, the fixing ofself-stick labels      fares on public passenger transport services — Scope of
   on original external packaging or blister packs, or the               Directive 79/7/EEC — Link with retirement age)
  addition to the packaging of new user instructions or                                        96/C 336/ 18 )
  information; it is for the national court to ascertain
  whether the cutting of blister packs or the reprinting of
   batch numbers on them are carried out in such a manner
  as to exclude any real risk of affecting the original
  condition of the tablets inside; that must be regarded as
  being the case where, for example, those operations are                           (Language of the case: English)
  authorized and supervised by a public authority with a
  view to ensuring that the product remains intact; it is
  also for the national court to verify that the original
  condition of the product inside the packaging is not
  indirectly affected, for example, by the fact that the           In Case C-228/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to
  external or inner packaging of the repackaged product            Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice
  or new user instructions of information omits certain            of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, for a
  important information or gives inaccurate information,           preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
  or by the fact that the packaging of the repackaged              court between Stanley Charles Atkins and Wrekin District
  product is not such as to give the product adequate              Council, Department of Transport — on the interpretation
  protection,                                                      of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
                                                                   progressive implementation of the principle of equal
                                                                   treatment for men and women in matters of social
— the new packaging clearly states who repackaged the              security ( 2 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
  product and the name of the manufacturer in print such           Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward,
  that a person with normal eyesight, exercising a normal          Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini , J. C. Moitinho de
  degree of attentiveness, would be in a position to               Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann, H.
  understand; however, it is not necessary to indicate that        Ragnemalm and L. Sevon, Judges ; M. B. Elmer,
  the repackaging was carried out without the                      Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave
  authorization of the trade-mark owner,                           judgment on 11 July 1996 , in which it ruled :
— the presentation of the repackaged product is not such as
  to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark
  and of its owner; thus, the packaging must not be
  defective, ofpoor quality, or untidy; it is for the national     On a proper interpretation of Article 3 (1 ) of Council
                                                                   Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
  court to ascertain whether the insertion into single
  external packaging of both original external packaging           progressive implementation of the principle of equal
  and loose blister packs constitutes an untidy form of            treatment for men and women in matters ofsocial security, a
                                                                   scheme such as that provided for in Section 93 (7) of the
  packaging liable to damage the reputation of the trade
  mark; as for the cutting of blister packs; it is for that        Transport Act 1985 and implemented and operated by
  court to assess in each particular case whether it has been      Wrekin District Council, under which concessionary fares
  carried out in such a manner that the reputation of the          on public passenger transport services are granted to certain
  trade mark might suffer; and                                     classes of persons, including certain elderly persons, does
                                                                   not fall within the scope of the Directive.
— the importer gives notice to the trade mark owner before
  the repackaged product is put on sale, and, on demand,
  supplies him with a specimen of the repackaged                   (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
  product.                                                         (2 ) OJ No L 6 , 19 79, p . 24 .
H OJ No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .