CELEX: C1999/001/08
Language: en
Date: 1999-01-04 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 1998 in Case C-210/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln): Haydar Akman v. Oberkreisdirektor des Rheinisch-Bergischen Kreises, joined party: Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses beim Verwaltungsgericht Köln (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 7, second paragraph, of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Right of a child of a Turkish worker to respond to any offer of employment in the host Member State in which he has completed vocational training - Situation of a child whose father, having been legally employed in the host Member State for more than three years, has returned to Turkey at the time when the child's training is completed) (1999/C 1/08)

4.1.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 1/5
for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
that court against Gunnar Nilsson, Per Olov Hagelgren,
                                                                                           (Sixth Chamber)
Solweig Arrborn Ð on the interpretation of Article 30 of
the EC Treaty and Article 2 of Council Directive                                        of 19 November 1998
87/328/EEC of 18 June 1987 on the acceptance for
breeding purposes of pure-bred breeding animals of the              in Case C-210/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
bovine species (OJ L 167, 26.6.1987, p. 54) Ð the Court             the Verwaltungsgericht Köln): Haydar Akman v.
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting as President          Oberkreisdirektor des Rheinisch-Bergischen Kreises, joined
of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann,              party: Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses beim
L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; J.                                     Verwaltungsgericht Köln (1)
Mischo, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 November 1998, in             (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement Ð Freedom of
which it has ruled:                                                 movement for workers Ð Article 7, second paragraph, of
                                                                    Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council Ð Right of
                                                                    a child of a Turkish worker to respond to any offer of
                                                                    employment in the host Member State in which he has
1. Article 30 of the EC Treaty and Article 2(1) of                  completed vocational training Ð Situation of a child
     Council Directive 87/328/EEC of 18 June 1987 on the            whose father, having been legally employed in the host
     acceptance for breeding purposes of pure-bred                  Member State for more than three years, has returned to
     breeding animals of the bovine species do not preclude          Turkey at the time when the child's training is completed)
     national rules under which authorisation is required
     for the distribution of and insemination with semen of                                 (1999/C 1/08)
     pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species from
     another Member State, provided that the sole purpose
     of that authorisation is to ensure that the person                            (Language of the case: German)
     authorised possesses the necessary qualifications for
     the operation intended.
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
2. The second indent of Article 2(1) of Directive                            published in the European Court Reports)
     87/328/EEC precludes national rules which prohibit or
     subject to authorisation the use in the territory of that
     Member State of semen from bulls of the Belgian Blue
                                                                    In Case C-210/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
     breed, where they have been accepted for artificial
                                                                    of the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln
     insemination in another Member State on the basis of
                                                                    (Administrative Court, Cologne) for a preliminary ruling
     tests carried out in accordance with Commission
                                                                    in the proceedings pending before that court between
     Decision 86/130/EEC of 11 March 1986 laying down
                                                                    Haydar        Akman        and     Oberkreisdirektor       des
     performance monitoring methods and methods for
                                                                    Rheinisch-Bergischen Kreises, joined party: Vertreter des
     assessing cattle's genetic value for pure-bred breeding
                                                                    öffentlichen Interesses beim Verwaltungsgericht Köln Ð
     animals of the bovine species. The national authorities
                                                                    on the interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 7
     of the Member State of import are not entitled to
                                                                    of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the
     reject the use of semen of that breed on the ground
                                                                    development of the Association, adopted by the
     that it carries the muscular hypertrophy gene, or that
                                                                    Association Council established by the Association
     use of the semen would be likely to entail suffering for
                                                                    Agreement between the European Economic Community
     the animals or affect their natural behaviour, or that
                                                                    and Turkey Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
     the breed is regarded by those national authorities as
                                                                    P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini,
     carrying genetic defects.
                                                                    H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and K. M.
                                                                    Ioannou, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; H. Rühl,
                                                                    Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment
3. The preamble to Directive 87/328/EEC does not                    on 19 November 1998, the operative part of which is as
     authorise a Member State to prohibit or subject to             follows:
     authorisation the use in its territory of semen from
     pure-bred bulls which have been accepted for artificial
     insemination in another Member State on the basis of           The second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80
     tests carried out in accordance with Decision                  of 19 September 1980, on the development of
     86/130/EEC but are regarded by the national                    the Association, adopted by the Association Council
     authorities of the Member State of import as having            established by the Agreement creating an Association
     an undesirable pedigree.                                       between the European Economic Community and Turkey
                                                                    must be interpreted as follows: a Turkish national such as
                                                                    the plaintiff in the main proceedings is entitled to respond
(1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.
                                                                    to any offer of employment in the host Member State after
                                                                    having completed a course of vocational training there,
                                                                    and consequently to be issued with a residence permit,
                                                                    when one of his parents has in the past been legally
 ---pagebreak--- C 1/6                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 4.1.1999
employed in that State for at least three years; however, it       on 1 November 1998 by the Commission of the European
is not required that the parent in question should still           Communities, represented by R. B. Wainwright, Principal
work or be resident in the Member State in question at the         Legal Adviser, and O. Couvert-CasteÂra, a national civil
time when his child wishes to gain access to the                   servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as
employment market there.                                           Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                   Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
(1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.                                           Kirchberg.
                                                                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                   that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad              Ð declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, by
der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 30 October                failing to communicate to the Commission the laws,
1998 in the case of 1. Assco Gerüste GmbH and                          regulations and administrative measures necessary in
2. R. Van Dijk, trading as Assco Holland Steigers Plettac              order to comply with Commission Directive 95/12/EC
Nederland, against 1. Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co and                     of 23 May 1995 implementing Council Directive
                         2. Layher BV                                  92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of
                                                                       household washing machines (1), the Kingdom of
                      (Case C-392/98)
                                                                       Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                        (1999/C 1/09)                                  directive;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the             Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
30 October 1998, received at the Court Registry on                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
5 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
1. Assco Gerüste GmbH and 2. R. Van Dijk, trading as               Under the third paragraph of Article 189 and the first
Assco Holland Steigers Plettac Nederland, against 1.               paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty, Member States
Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co and 2. Layher BV on the                   are required to adopt the necessary measures in order to
following questions:                                               implement directives addressed to them prior to the expiry
                                                                   of the time-limit prescribed for doing so. The time-limit in
1. Does the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to                question expired on 1 March 1996 but the Kingdom of
    interpret Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement also               Belgium has not adopted the necessary measures.
    extend to the provisions of that article which do not
    concern provisional measures to prevent infringement           (1) OJ L 136, 21.6.1995, p. 1.
    of trade-mark rights?
2. Does Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement, in particular
    Article 50(6), have direct effect?
3. Where an action lies under national civil law against           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
    the copying of an industrial design, on the basis of the       Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) by order of
    general rules concerning wrongful acts, and in                 that court of 27 August 1998 in the case of
    particular those relating to unlawful competition, must        Grundstückgemeinschaft Schloûstraûe GbR v. Finanzamt
    the protection thus afforded to the holder of the right                                   Paderborn
    be regarded as an intellectual property right' within
    the meaning of Article 50(1) of the TRIPs Agreement?                                  (Case C-396/98)
                                                                                           (1999/C 1/11)
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                   the European Communities by an order of the
Action brought on 5 November 1998 by the Commission                Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 27 August
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                 1998, which was received at the Court Registry on
                            Belgium                                6 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                   Grundstückgemeinschaft Schloûstraûe GbR v. Finanzamt
                      (Case C-394/98)
                                                                   Paderborn on the following questions:
                        (1999/C 1/10)
                                                                   According to the case-law of the Court of Justice (Case
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought               C-37/95 (1) Ghent Coal Terminal NV, in which reference is
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities            made to Case C-110/94 (2) INZO), a taxable person can