CELEX: C2004/047/14
Language: en
Date: 2004-02-21 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 January 2004 in Case C-201/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen on the application of Delena Wells v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — National measure granting consent for mining operations without an environmental impact assessment being carried out — Direct effect of directives Triangular situation)

C 47/8                    EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             21.2.2004
Regulation (EC) No 241/1999 of 25 January 1999 (OJ                           interpretation of Article 6(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/
1999 L 27, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                    104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the                  the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40,
Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and P. Jann, Judges; D. Ruiz-                   p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                   for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans
given a judgment on 7 January 2004, in which it has ruled:                   and D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advo-
                                                                             cate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the
1.    Articles 2 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of             Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 January 2004, in which
      22 December 1994 laying down measures concerning the entry             it has ruled:
      into the Community and the export and re-export from the
      Community of goods infringing certain intellectual property            Article 6(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 Decem-
      rights, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 241/1999              ber 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to
      of 25 January 1999, are applicable to situations in which              trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that, where there exists a
      goods in transit between two countries not belonging to the            likelihood of aural confusion between a word mark registered in one
      European Community are temporarily detained in a Member                Member State and an indication, in the course of trade, of the
      State by the customs authorities of that State.                        geographical origin of a product originating in another Member
                                                                             State, the proprietor of the trade mark may, pursuant to Article 5 of
2.    The duty to interpret national law so as to be compatible with         Directive 89/104, prevent the use of the indication of geographical
      Community law, in the light of its wording and purpose, in             origin only if that use is not in accordance with honest practices in
      order to attain the aim pursued by the latter, cannot, of itself       industrial or commercial matters. It is for the national court to carry
      and independently of a law adopted by a Member State, have             out an overall assessment of all the circumstances of the particular
      the effect of determining or aggravating the liability in criminal     case in that regard.
      law of an entity which has failed to meet the requirements of
      Regulation No 3295/94.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
(1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                                        (Fifth Chamber)
                           of 7 January 2004
                                                                                                       of 7 January 2004
in Case C-100/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesgerichtshof): Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH &
                                                                             in Case C-201/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                       Co. v Putsch GmbH (1)
                                                                             the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
                                                                             Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen on
(Directive 89/104/EEC — Limitation of the effects of a trade                 the application of Delena Wells v Secretary of State for
mark in relation to indications concerning geographical                            Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1)
origin — Use of a geographical indication as a trade mark
as an element of use in accordance with ‘honest practices in
                 industrial or commercial matters’)                          (Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of
                                                                             certain projects on the environment — National measure
                                                                             granting consent for mining operations without an environ-
                             (2004/C 47/13)
                                                                             mental impact assessment being carried out — Direct effect
                                                                                             of directives Triangular situation)
                     (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                                         (2004/C 47/14)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                                 (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-100/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  In Case C-201/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. and Putsch GmbH, on the                      EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
 ---pagebreak--- 21.2.2004                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                    C 47/9
Bench Division (Administrative Court), for a preliminary ruling                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in the proceedings pending before that court between The
Queen on the application of Delena Wells and Secretary of
                                                                                                           (Fifth Chamber)
State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, on
the interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June
1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public                                                of 11 December 2003
and private projects on the environment, the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La                        in Case C-289/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
Pergola, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Princi-               the Oberlandesgericht München): AMOK Verlags GmbH
pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                                   v A & R Gastronomie GmbH (1)
7 January 2004, in which it has ruled:
                                                                               (Freedom to provide services — Lawyer established in
                                                                               one Member State working in conjunction with a lawyer
1.    Article 2(1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June                  established in another Member State — Legal costs to be
      1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and              reimbursed by the unsuccessful party in a dispute to the
      private projects on the environment, read in conjunction with                                successful party Limitation)
      Article 4(2) thereof, is to be interpreted as meaning that, in the
      context of applying provisions such as section 22 of the
      Planning and Compensation Act 1991 and Schedule 2 to that                                             (2004/C 47/15)
      Act, the decisions adopted by the competent authorities, whose
      effect is to permit the resumption of mining operations,                                     (Language of the case: German)
      comprise, as a whole, a ‘development consent’ within the
      meaning of Article 1(2) of that directive, so that the competent
      authorities are obliged, where appropriate, to carry out an              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      assessment of the environmental effects of such operations.                                   in the European Court Reports)
      In a consent procedure comprising several stages, that assess-
      ment must, in principle, be carried out as soon as it is possible
      to identify and assess all the effects which the project may have        In Case C-289/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
      on the environment.                                                      by the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) for a prelimi-
                                                                               nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
2.    In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, an               between AMOK Verlags GmbH and A & R Gastronomie
      individual may, where appropriate, rely on Article 2(1) of               GmbH, on the interpretation of Articles 12 EC and 49 EC, the
      Directive 85/337, read in conjunction with Articles 1(2) and             Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),
      4(2) thereof.                                                            acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola
                                                                               and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; M.-
                                                                               F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
3.    Under Article 10 EC the competent authorities are obliged to
                                                                               a judgment on 11 December 2003, in which it has ruled:
      take, within the sphere of their competence, all general or
      particular measures for remedying the failure to carry out an
      assessment of the environmental effects of a project as provided         1.    Article 49 EC, Article 50 EC and Council Directive 77/249/
      for in Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337.                                       EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by
                                                                                     lawyers of freedom to provide services must be interpreted as not
      The detailed procedural rules applicable in that context are a                 precluding a judicial rule of a Member State limiting to the
      matter for the domestic legal order of each Member State, under                level of the fees which would have resulted from representation
      the principle of procedural autonomy of the Member States,                     by a lawyer established in that State the reimbursement, by an
      provided that they are not less favourable than those governing                unsuccessful party in a dispute to the successful party, of costs
      similar domestic situations (principle of equivalence) and that                in respect of the services provided by a lawyer established in
      they do not render impossible in practice or excessively difficult             another Member State.
      the exercise of rights conferred by the Community legal order
      (principle of effectiveness).                                            2.    Article 49 EC and Directive 77/249 must, however, be
                                                                                     construed as precluding a judicial rule of a Member State which
      In that regard, it is for the national court to determine whether
                                                                                     provides that the successful party to a dispute, in which that
      it is possible under domestic law for a consent already granted
                                                                                     party has been represented by a lawyer established in another
      to be revoked or suspended in order to subject the project to an
                                                                                     Member State, cannot recover from the unsuccessful party, in
      assessment of its environmental effects, in accordance with the
                                                                                     addition to the fees of that lawyer, the fees of a lawyer practising
      requirements of Directive 85/337, or alternatively, if the
                                                                                     before the court seised of the dispute who, under the national
      individual so agrees, whether it is possible for the latter to claim
                                                                                     legislation in question, was required to work in conjunction
      compensation for the harm suffered.
                                                                                     with the first lawyer.
(1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.                                                     (1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.