CELEX: C2000/247/28
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-243/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court), by order of that court of 23 May 2000, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Trades Union Congress

26.8.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 247/21
            other hand, Member States are not supposed to be             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
            able to take account of the regional-political trading       of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
            needs established by the Commission itself using the         (Divisional Court), by order of that court of 23 May 2000,
            objective standard of regional disparities in those          in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for
            Member States. Such ‘corrections’ also mean that                Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Trades Union Congress
            the level of the population in the region eligible for
            aid exceeds the target percentage level laid down by
                                                                                                  (Case C-243/00)
            the Commission of 42,7 % of the Community
            population. In any event, the fact that the Com-
            mission allows some Member States to have bigger                                      (2000/C 247/28)
            regions eligible for aid than is necessary having
            regard to the actual size of regional disparities in
            those Member States cannot constitute an objective           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            reason for reducing the size of the German regions           European Communities by an order of the High Court of
            eligible for aid.                                            Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional
                                                                         Court) of 23 May 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 19 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                         of The Queen against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry,
      —     Germany does not challenge the Commission’s                  Ex parte: Trades Union Congress, on the following question:
            chosen goal to devolve decisions on the size of the
            regional aid areas to the Member States. However,
            the measures taken by the Commission to achieve              ‘Whether Directive 96/34/EC (1) (as extended to the United
            that goal are both unnecessary and wholly dispro-            Kingdom by Directive 97/75/EC) (2), and the Framework
            portionate. Reducing the size of regions of Germany          Agreement of 14 December 1995 to which it gave effect,
            eligible for aid is not the least restrictive possible       required Member States to confer the right to parental leave in
            measure to attain the objective of reducing the              relation to children under the specified age born or adopted
            size of those regions eligible for aid within the            before the date on which the Directive was given effect in the
            Community as a whole. For example, the Com-                  national law of Member States or only to children born or
            mission could have omitted to adopt ‘correction              adopted on or after that date.’
            measures’, or structured them in such a way that the
            increase in the overall population of the region
            eligible for aid was less. The Commission could also,        (1) Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework
            to even out the ‘corrections’, have applied the same             agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the
            reductions in all Member States, that is, including              ETUC (OJ L 145, 19.06.96, p. 4).
                                                                         (2) OJ L 10, 16.01.98, p. 24.
            those for whom the ‘corrections’ work in their
            favour.
—     Infringement of essential procedural requirements. The
      Commission does not give sufficient reasons for reducing
      the size of the German regions eligible for aid as such or
      the effect of applying dissimilar treatment to Community
      trade and competition.                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-
                                                                         hof by order of that court of 11 May 2000 in the case of
                                                                         van Doren + Q. GmbH against lifestyle sports + sports-
      Nor do the ‘Guidelines on National Regional Aid’ publi-                 wear Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Michael Orth
      shed by the Commission in Official Journal C 74 of
      10 March 1998 contain any reasons for the Com-
      mission’s subsequent decision. Even if they did, Germany                                    (Case C-244/00)
      could not have challenged those guidelines of its own
      motion.                                                                                     (2000/C 247/29)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Federal Court of Justice
(1) The Commission’s decision of 14 March 2000 redefining the
                                                                         of 11 May 2000, received at the Court Registry on 19 June
    borders of areas eligible for aid for the purpose of the Com-        2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of van Doren + Q.
    munity’s project entitled ‘Improvement of regional economic          GmbH v lifestyle sports + sportswear Handelsgesellschaft mbH
    structures’ in Germany for the period 1 January 2000 to              on the following question:
    31 December 2003 — West Germany and Berlin.
                                                                         Are Articles 28 and 30 EC to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                         they permit the application of national legislation under which
                                                                         an infringer against whom proceedings are brought on the
                                                                         basis of a trade mark for marketing original goods, and who
                                                                         claims that the trade-mark right has been exhausted within the