CELEX: C2003/171/26
Language: en
Date: 2003-07-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-228/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein oikeus by order of that Court of 23 May 2003 in the case of The Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy against LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy

C 171/18               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         19.7.2003
2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.                       2.    Does the fact that under the legislation of that Member
                                                                              State the person has the option of being voluntarily
                                                                              insured in respect of a number of branches of social
                                                                              security, without such voluntary insurance being con-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               ditional on his remaining resident in that Member State,
                                                                              have any bearing on the answer to Question 1?
Directive 98/79/EC establishes harmonised rules applicable to
the characteristics and authorisation procedures for in vitro           If the answer to the Question 1 is in the negative, the following
diagnostic medical devices in order to ensure their free                question is referred in the alternative:
movement under the best safety conditions. Article 22 of the
directive provides that Member States are to adopt the laws,            3.    In a situation such as that described above, is Article 39
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply                 EC to be interpreted as meaning that the replacement
with that directive not later than 7 December 1999 and that                   of compulsory insurance with voluntary insurance is
they are immediately to inform the Commission thereof. The                    incompatible therewith where the reason for the termin-
Commission received from the French authorities Order                         ation of the compulsory insurance is the introduction of
No 2001-198 of 1 March 2001 which contains the legal                          a residence requirement?
provisions necessary to transpose the directive. However, it is
clear from various letters from those authorities that the              (1 ) OJ 1971, L 149, p. 2.
implementing decrees have still to be adopted and published
before certain provisions of the order become applicable. Since
the Commission has not received any information from which
it could conclude that those decrees have been adopted, it
considers that the French Republic has not yet taken all the
measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event,
has not communicated those measures to the Commission.                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Korkein oikeus
                                                                        by order of that Court of 23 May 2003 in the case of The
                                                                        Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy against
( 1) OJ L 331, 7.12.1998, p. 1.
                                                                                             LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy
                                                                                                   (Case C-228/03)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 171/26)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank
Amsterdam by judgment of that Court of 21 May 2003 in                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the case of A.J. Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën against Raad                  European Communities by order of the Korkein oikeus
        van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank                     (Supreme Court) of 23 May 2003, received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 26 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                        of The Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy against
                         (Case C-227/03)                                LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy on the following questions:
                         (2003/C 171/25)                                When applying Article 6(1)(c) of the First Council Directive
                                                                        89/104/EEC ( 1) to approximate the laws of the Member States
                                                                        relating to trade marks:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (1) What are the criteria
European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank Amster-
dam (District Court, Amsterdam) of 21 May 2003, received at                   (a)   on the basis of which the question of regarding a
the Court Registry on 26 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling                         product as a spare part or accessory is to be decided,
in the case of A.J. Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën against Raad                           and
van Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank on the following
questions:                                                                    (b) on the basis of which those products to be regarded
                                                                                    as other than spare parts and accessories which can
1.    Does Article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71 ( 1) pre-                      also fall within the scope of the said subparagraph
      clude legislation of a Member State under which a person                      are to be determined?
      who has ceased all occupational activity in its territory
      remains insured under that legislation only if he continues       (2) Is the permissibility of the use of a third party’s trade
      to reside there, whilst that person remains insured under               mark to be assessed differently, depending on whether
      the legislation of that Member State in respect of certain              the product is like a spare part or accessory or whether it
      other branches of social security irrespective of his place             is a product which can fall within the scope of the said
      of residence?                                                           subparagraph on another basis?
 ---pagebreak--- 19.7.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 171/19
(3) How should the requirement that the use must be                      Action brought on 5 June 2003 by the Commission of
       ‘necessary’ to indicate the intended purpose of a product         the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
       be interpreted? Can the criterion of necessity be satisfied                                     Netherlands
       even though it would in itself be possible to state the
       intended purpose without an express reference to the
                                                                                                     (Case C-241/03)
       third party’s trade mark, by merely mentioning only for
       instance the technical principle of functioning of the
       product? What significance does it have in that case that                                     (2003/C 171/28)
       the statement may be more difficult for consumers to
       understand if there is no express reference to the third
       party’s trade mark?
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
(4) What factors should be taken into account when assessing             before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
       accordance with honest commercial practice? Does the              5 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communi-
       mentioning of a third party’s trade mark in connection            ties, represented by G. Zavvos and W. Wils, as Agents.
       with the marketing of one’s own product constitute a
       reference to the fact that the marketer’s own product
       corresponds, in quality and technically or as regards its         The applicant claims that the Court should:
       other properties, to the product designated by the third
       party’s trade mark?                                               —      declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
(5) Does it affect the permissibility of the use of a third                     Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of
       party’s trade mark that the economic operator who refers                 the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the
       to the third party’s trade mark also markets, in addition                laws of the Members States relating to insurance against
       to a spare part or accessory, a product of his own which                 civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and
       that spare part or accessory is intended to be used with?                amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/
                                                                                EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) ( 1), or in any
( 1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to                  event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
     approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade                Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
     marks (OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1).                                        obligations under that directive;
                                                                         —      order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de                     Pleas in law and main arguments
1a Instancia n o 35 (Barcelona) by order of that Court of
5 May 2003 in the case of QDQ Media S.A. against
                         A. Omedas Lecha                                 The time limit for compliance with the directive expired on
                                                                         20 July 2002.
                          (Case C-235/03)
                                                                         (1 ) OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65.
                          (2003/C 171/27)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Juzgado de 1a Instancia
no 35 (Court of First Instance No 35) (Barcelona) of 5 May
2003, received at the Court Registry on 2 June 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of QDQ Media S.A. against                 Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the
A. Omedas Lecha on the following question:                                    European Communities against the French Republic
Within the context of the protection accorded a creditor under                                       (Case C-243/03)
Directive 2000/35/EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in                                             (2003/C 171/29)
commercial transaction, is it possible to regard as a debt-
related recovery cost the expenses arising from the use of legal
representation and assistance in the enforcement proceedings
brought for the purpose of recovering that debt.                         An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 June 2003
( 1) OJ L 200 of 8.8.2000, p. 35.                                        by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by E. Traversa, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg.