CELEX: C2000/034/20
Language: en
Date: 2000-02-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-426/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 30 September 1999 in the case of Connaught Laboratories Inc. v (1) SmithKline Beecham Pharma GmbH and (2) SmithKline Beecham Biologicals Manufacturing S.A.

5.2.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 34/11
2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:                  3. Is the priority of an infringement action brought by the
                                                                            claimant in his own name but on behalf of the patent
     Does Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply if a refugee               owner preserved if the patent at issue is transferred to the
     in employment and members of his family travelled from                 claimant in the course of the proceedings and he is
     a third country to a Member State direct, without moving               thenceforth no longer asserting the rights of another but
     within the Community?                                                  his own rights as owner of the patent?
3. Does Community law preclude a national rule which                    4. Does the priority of an action for a negative declaration
     makes entitlement to family benefits conditional on the                brought against the owner of the patent, intended to clarify
     actual grant of a right of residence, even if the refugee has          whether a certain product infringes his patent, continue to
     been granted the right to asylum?                                      apply if the patent at issue is transferred during the
                                                                            proceedings and the action for a negative declaration is
                                                                            thereupon directed against the new owner of the patent?
(1) OJ L 149 of 5.7.1971, p. 2.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-                 Action brought on 5 November 1999 by the Commission
gericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 30 September               of the European Communities against the Portuguese
1999 in the case of Connaught Laboratories Inc. v                                                   Republic
(1) SmithKline Beecham Pharma GmbH and (2) SmithK-
         line Beecham Biologicals Manufacturing S.A.
                                                                                                (Case C-429/99)
                         (Case C-426/99)
                                                                                                 (2000/C 34/21)
                          (2000/C 34/20)
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice on 5 November 1999 by the Commission
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        of the European Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves
European Communities by an order of the Oberlandesgericht
                                                                        Vieira and Barry Doherty, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,
(Higher Regional Court) Düsseldorf of 30 September 1999,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
which was received at the Court Registry on 3 November
                                                                        Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Connaught
                                                                        Centre, Kirchberg.
Laboratories Inc. v (1) SmithKIine Beecham Pharma GmbH
and (2) SmithKline Beecham Biologicals Manufacturing S.A.
on the following questions on the interpretation of the
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
first paragraph of Article 21 of the Brussels Convention on
jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and
commercial matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by                — Declare that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
the Accession Conventions of 9 October 1978 (OJ 1978                        obligations under the second indent of Article 2(4) of
L 304, p. 1), 25 October 1982 (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and                     Directive 90/388/EEC (1) as amended by Directive
26 May 1989 (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1):                                          96/19/EC (2);
1. Does a cause of action pursued in an alternative claim               — Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
     already become pending (‘anhängig’) with the event which
     under national procedural law in principle makes it a lis
     pendens (in this case, service of the summons), or does it
     become a lis pendens for the purposes of Article 21 of the         Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
     Brussels Convention only at the time when (additionally)
     the procedural condition subject to which the alternative
     claim is put forward is fulfilled?                                 The Commission considers that ‘call-back’ services are not
                                                                        voice telephony services within the meaning of Commission
2. Who is to be regarded as the ‘party’ where the claimant,             Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the
     on the basis of an authority to bring proceedings given by         markets for telecommunications services and that therefore
     the substantive owner of the right, asserts the latter’s rights    Article 3 of Commission Decision 97/310/EC does not grant
     (the rights of another) in his own name (‘Prozessstand-            any additional implementation period regarding the supply of
     schaft’) — the nominal claimant bringing the action or the         such services, which should already have been liberalised in
     substantive owner of the rights?                                   Portugal upon the entry into force of that directive. Portugal