CELEX: C2002/144/25
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-100/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that Court of 7 February 2002 in the case of Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. against Putsch GmbH

15.6.2002             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 144/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-               1.   Is Article 6(1)(b) of the Trade Mark Directive (1) also
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 28 February 2002 on                 applicable if a third party uses the indications referred to
the appeal brought by Hannl + Hofstetter Internationale                   therein as trade marks?
Spedition GmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Berufungssenat II der
                          Region Wien)                               2.   If so, must their use as trade marks be taken into account
                                                                          when it is considered, pursuant to the final clause of
                                                                          Article 6(1) of the Trade Mark Directive, whether ‘honest
                         (Case C-91/02)                                   practices in industrial or commercial matters’ prevail?
                        (2002/C 144/24)
                                                                     (1) OJ L 40, 11 February 1989, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
hof (Administrative Court) of 28 February 2002, received at
the Court Registry on 15 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling
on the appeal brought by Hannl + Hofstetter Internationale
Spedition GmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Berufungssenat II der Region
Wien) on the following question:                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
                                                                     richt Stuttgart by order of that Court of 5 March 2002 in
Is the increase in duty under Paragraph 108(1) of the Austrian       the administrative-law case of Ingeborg Beuttenmüller
Zollrechts-Durchführungsgesetz, which is payable in the event                      against Land Baden-Württemberg
of the incurrence of a customs debt under Articles 202 to 205
or 210 or 211 of the Customs Code or in the event of
subsequent recovery under Article 220 of the Customs Code                                     (Case C-102/02)
and which corresponds to the amount which would have been
incurred as interest on arrears for the period between the
incurrence of the customs debt and the entry in the accounts,                                (2002/C 144/26)
and in the case of subsequent recovery under Article 220 of
the Customs Code between the date when the customs debt
originally entered in the accounts was due and the entry in the
accounts of the customs debt to be subsequently recovered,
contrary to Community customs provisions?
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                     Stuttgart (Stuttgart Administrative Court) of 5 March 2002,
                                                                     received at the Court Registry on 20 March 2002, for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling in the administrative-law case of Ingeborg
                                                                     Beuttenmüller against Land Baden-Württemberg on the follow-
                                                                     ing questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundes-                    1.   Is Article 3, in conjunction with Article 4, of Council
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 7 February 2002 in                  Directive 89/48/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 on a
the case of Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. against                       general system for the recognition of higher-education
                         Putsch GmbH                                      diplomas awarded on completion of professional edu-
                                                                          cation and training of at least three years’ duration directly
                        (Case C-100/02)                                   applicable so that a national of a Member State may rely
                                                                          directly on the provisions of the directive where it has
                                                                          not been correctly transposed into national law?
                        (2002/C 144/25)
                                                                     2.   Is Article 3, in conjunction with Article 4, of Council
                                                                          Directive 92/51/EEC (2) of 18 June 1992 on a second
                                                                          general system for the recognition of professional edu-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    cation and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof                    directly applicable so that, in the absence of implementing
(Federal Court of Justice) of 7 February 2002, received at the            measures enacted within the period prescribed for that
Court Registry on 18 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in              purpose, a national of a Member State may rely on
the case of Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. against Putsch                those provisions of the directive as against all national
GmbH on the following questions:                                          provisions that are not in conformity with the directive?