CELEX: C2003/007/07
Language: en
Date: 2003-01-11 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 November 2002 in Case C-23/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel): Robelco NV v Robeco Groep NV (Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(5) — Provisions on protection against use of a sign other than for the purposes of distinguishing goods or services — Extent of such protection — Signs similar to the mark)

C 7/4                    EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          11.1.2003
1.    Articles 43 EC and 48 EC preclude a national provision such            preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
      as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the           court between Cofidis SA and Jean-Louis Fredout, on the
      transferor at undervalue of shares in companies from the benefit       interpretation of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993
      of deferral of tax due on capital gains made on those shares           on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95,
      where the transfer is to a foreign legal person in which the           p. 29), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
      transferor directly or indirectly has a holding — provided that        President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans,
      that holding gives him definite influence over the decisions of        D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola and P. Jann (Rapporteur),
      that foreign legal person and allows him to determine its              Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
      activities — or to a Swedish limited company which is a branch         Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      of such a foreign legal person.                                        21 November 2002, in which it has ruled:
2.    Articles 56 EC and 58 EC preclude a national provision such
                                                                             Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in
      as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the
                                                                             consumer contracts precludes a national provision which, in proceed-
      transferor at undervalue of shares in companies from the benefit
                                                                             ings brought by a seller or supplier against a consumer on the basis
      of deferral of tax due on capital gains made on those shares
                                                                             of a contract concluded between them, prohibits the national court,
      where the transfer is to a foreign legal person in which the
                                                                             on expiry of a limitation period, from finding, of its own motion or
      transferor directly or indirectly has a holding which is not such
                                                                             following a plea raised by the consumer, that a term of the contract
      as to give him definite influence over the decisions of that
                                                                             is unfair.
      foreign legal person or allow him to determine its activities.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
( 1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 21 November 2002                                                         of 21 November 2002
in Case C-473/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    in Case C-23/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the tribunal d’instance de Vienne): Cofidis SA v Jean-                       the Hof van Beroep te Brussel): Robelco NV v Robeco
                           Louis Fredout (1)                                                             Groep NV (1)
(Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts                    (Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(5) — Provisions on
— Action brought by a seller or supplier — National                          protection against use of a sign other than for the purposes
provision prohibiting the national court from finding a term                 of distinguishing goods or services — Extent of such
unfair, of its own motion or following a plea raised by the                              protection — Signs similar to the mark)
        consumer, after the expiry of a limitation period)
                                                                                                        (2003/C 7/07)
                            (2003/C 7/06)
                                                                                                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-23/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
In Case C-473/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   by the Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Belgium) for a preliminary
EC by the Tribunal d’instance de Vienne (France) for a                       ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
 ---pagebreak--- 11.1.2003                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                  C 7/5
Robelco NV and Robeco Groep NV on the interpretation                          of public policy, public security or public health (OJ, English
of Article 5(5) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of                      Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 117), the Court, composed of:
21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member                        G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet
States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), the Court                and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the                  D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,
Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamb-                  F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
er, V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and                       Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Adminis-
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advo-                   trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 November
cate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the                    2002, in which it has ruled:
Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 November 2002, in
which it has ruled:                                                           Neither Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                              Article 39 EC) nor the provisions of secondary legislation which
Article 5(5) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December             implement the freedom of movement for workers preclude a Member
1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to                 State from imposing, in relation to a migrant worker who is a
trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State                national of another Member State, administrative police measures
may, if it sees fit, and subject to such conditions as it may determine,      limiting that worker’s right of residence to a part of the national
protect a trade mark against use of a sign other than for the purposes        territory, provided
of distinguishing goods or services, where use of that sign without
due cause takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the                —      that such action is justified by reasons of public order or public
distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.                               security based on his individual conduct;
                                                                              —      that, by reason of their seriousness, those reasons could
( 1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.                                                           otherwise give rise only to a measure prohibiting him from
                                                                                     residing in, or banishing him from, the whole of the national
                                                                                     territory; and
                                                                              —      that the conduct which the Member State concerned wishes to
                                                                                     prevent gives rise, in the case of its own nationals, to punitive
                                                                                     measures or other genuine and effective measures designed to
                                                                                     combat it.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                         of 26 November 2002
in Case C-100/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil d’État): Ministre de l’Intérieur v Aitor Oteiza
                               Olazabal ( 1)
                                                                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Freedom of movement for persons — Restrictions — Public
policy (ordre public) — Police measures limiting the right of                                              (Sixth Chamber)
residence of a national of another Member State to part of
                          the national territory)                                                       of 26 November 2002
                              (2003/C 7/08)                                   in Case C-202/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                                      ties v French Republic ( 1)
                       (Language of the case: French)                         (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                              Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        Classification as special protection areas — Plaine des
                      in the European Court Reports)                                                            Maures)
                                                                                                             (2003/C 7/09)
In Case C-100/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                           (Language of the case: French)
EC by the Conseil d’État (France) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Ministre
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
de l’Intérieur and Aitor Oteiza Olazabal, on the interpretation
                                                                                                    in the European Court Reports)
of Articles 6, 8a and 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Articles 12 EC, 18 EC and 39 EC) and of Council
Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the co-
ordination of special measures concerning the movement and                    In Case C-202/01, Commission of the European Communities
residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds                 (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda) v French Republic