CELEX: C1999/020/36
Language: en
Date: 1999-01-23 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 26 November 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-426/98)

23.1.1999               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 20/21
additional training required in order to obtain the                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
corresponding title in the host Member State, Article 16               der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 6 November
provides that that State may require the migrant architect             1998 in the case of Marca Mode CV against 1. Adidas AG
to use the title employed in his Member State of origin or                               and 2. Adidas Benelux BV
the Member State from which he comes in a suitable
form' to be specified by the host Member State. The                                           (Case C-425/98)
Directive does not authorise the host Member State to                                          (1999/C 20/35)
adopt other measures, such as the imposition of an
obligation requiring the architect in question to work in
collaboration with a professional person who is qualified
in the host Member State to pursue to the activities for
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
which the migrant architect has not received the
                                                                       European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
prescribed training. Such measures constitute a
                                                                       der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
disproportionate restriction on the architect's freedom of
                                                                       6 November 1998, received at the Court Registry on
establishment and, a fortiori, on freedom to provide
                                                                       26 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
services.
                                                                       Marca Mode CV against 1. Adidas AG and 2. Adidas
                                                                       Benelux BV on the following question:
(1) Boletin Oficial del Estado No 214 of 7 September 1989.
(2) OJ L 223, 21.8.1985, p. 15.
                                                                       Where:
                                                                       (a) a trade mark has a particularly distinctive character,
                                                                            either per se or because of the reputation it enjoys
                                                                            with the public; and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
PremieÁre Instance de Bruxelles (Sixth Chamber) by
judgment of that court of 10 November 1998 in the case
of Colonia Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft, Zweignieder-               (b) a third party, without the consent of the proprietor of
lassung München and 17 others against the Belgian State,                    the mark, uses, in the course of trade in goods or
  Minister of Finance, Customs and Excise Administration                    services which are identical with, or similar to, those
                                                                            for which the trade mark is registered, a sign which
                         (Case C-422/98)                                    so closely corresponds to the mark as to create a
                                                                            likelihood of its being associated with that mark,
                          (1999/C 20/34)
                                                                       must Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 89/104/EEC (1) be
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 interpreted as meaning that the exclusive right enjoyed by
European Communities by judgment of the Sixth                          the proprietor entitles him to prevent the use of the sign
Chamber of the Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance de                       by that third party if the distinctive character of the mark
Bruxelles (Court of First Instance, Brussels) of                       is such that the possibility of such association giving rise
10 November 1998, received at the Court Registry on                    to confusion cannot be ruled out?
26 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Colonia Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft, Zweigniederlas-
sung München and 17 others v. Belgian State, Minister of               (1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1.
Finance, Customs and Excise Administration on the
following question:
Does not Paragraph 210 of the Ministerial Decree of
22 January 1948, by requiring an importer into Belgium
of manufactured tobacco products to which tax bands are                Action brought on 26 November 1998 by the Commission
affixed, where those products are not fit for consumption,             of the European Communities against the Hellenic
to destroy them in Belgium under the supervision of the                                            Republic
Belgian customs authorities and by not according
probative value to documents drawn up by the customs                                          (Case C-426/98)
authorities of another Member State as proof of such
                                                                                               (1999/C 20/36)
destruction constitute a measure having effects equivalent
to a quantitative restriction?'
                                                                       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/22                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 23.1.1999
on 26 November 1998 by the Commission of the                             Action brought on 26 November 1998 by the Commission
European Communities, represented by Dimitrios                           of the European Communities against the Federal
Gouloussis, Commission Legal Adviser, with an address                                         Republic of Germany
for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez
                                                                                                (Case C-427/98)
de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                                                 (1999/C 20/37)
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
Ð declare that, by imposing for the benefit of the                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European
    Lawyers' Fund and the Lawyers' Social Fund                           Communities on 26 November 1998 by the Commission
    additional charges on the formation of public limited                of the European Communities, represented by Enrico
    companies and limited liability companies, on the                    Traversa, a Member of the Commission's Legal Service
    promulgation and alteration of their memoranda and                   and Dr Andreas Buschmann, a national expert seconded
    articles of association and on the increase of their                 to the Commission's Legal Service, acting as Agents, with
    capital, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its              an address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of
    obligations under the EC Treaty and in particular                    Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Commission's
    under Articles 7 and 10 of Directive 69/335/EEC (1), as              Legal Service, Wagner Centre C-254, Luxembourg.
    amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC (2) of
    10 June 1985;
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         (1) Find that the Federal Republic of Germany failed to
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of the Sixth
                                                                               Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on
                                                                               the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
Since the total indirect tax burden in Greece on the                           relating to turnover taxes Ð Common system of
formation of a company, on the promulgation and                                value added tax; uniform basis of assessment, in that
alteration of its memorandum and articles of association                       it failed to adopt any provisions enabling the basis of
and on an increase in its capital exceeds by far the upper                     taxation to be adjusted where price reduction
limit laid down in Article 7 of Directive 69/335/EEC, as                       coupons have been granted.
amended by Directive 85/303/EEC, the provisions of
Greek law which impose the duties at issue are
inconsistent with Community law.
                                                                         (2) Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
                                                                               costs.
Contrary to the assertions of the Hellenic Republic, the
pertinent charges:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(1) cannot be described as employers' contributions,
     because there is no link of an insurance nature
     between the persons liable to pay them and the                      In the Commission's view, German law infringes the
     insurance bodies entitled to the payments;                          principle of neutrality of turnover tax as expressed in
                                                                         Article 11 Part A 1(a) and Part C 1 of the Sixth Directive,
                                                                         in that it does not permit a taxpayer (such as a
(2) do not cease to be indirect duties because (a) they are              manufacturer) who, upon presentation of a coupon,
     not paid as income into the State budget in its                     reimburses a part of the final sale price of products, which
     narrow sense but into the budget of public legal                    he does not deliver to his purchasers direct, to reduce his
     persons, (b) the purpose for which they are levied is               basis of taxation accordingly. The German Government's
     fixed by law and (c) they are imposed irrespective of               administrative notice of 15 April 1998, following the
     the tax-paying capacity of the persons liable to pay                judgment of the Court of Justice in Elida Gibbs (2),
     them;                                                               distinguishes between reimbursements to the end user (in
                                                                         exchange for a price reimbursement coupon') and
                                                                         reimbursements to the retailer (in exchange for a price
(3) are not in the nature of consideration or fees for the               reduction coupon'). However, ultimately neither the
     services provided by the lawyers.                                   recipient of the reimbursement nor the specific name given
                                                                         to the coupon is material since, in the Commission's view
                                                                         (based on the Elida Gibbs judgment), the law should treat
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
(2) OJ L 156, 15.6.1985, p. 23.                                          both variants alike. The basis of taxation applied to a
                                                                         taxpayer (such as a manufacturer) who grants
                                                                         reimbursements on the final price of his products to
                                                                         stimulate sales should be reduced by the amount