CELEX: C2003/007/09
Language: en
Date: 2003-01-11 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 November 2002 in Case C-202/01: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Classification as special protection areas — Plaine des Maures)

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
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/6                    EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          11.1.2003
(Agents: G. de Bergues and D. Colas): Application for a                       (Agents: initially F. van de Craen, and, subsequently, A. Snoecx):
declaration that, by failing in sufficient measure to classify as             Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,
special protection areas the territories most suitable for the                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
conservation of the species of wild bird referred to in Annex I               with Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending
to Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the                        Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of
conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), as amended                  certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ
by Commission Directive 97/49/EC of 29 July 1997 (OJ 1997                     1997 L 73, p. 5) or, alternatively, by failing to communicate
L 223, p. 9), and of migratory species, and, in particular, by                them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
failing to classify a sufficiently large area of land on the Plaine           to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (Sixth
des Maures (France) as a special protection area, the French                  Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), Presi-
Republic has failed to comply with its obligations under the                  dent of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken and
Directive and has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC               J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
Treaty, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                               R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 November
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rap-                  2002, in which it:
porteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                  1.    Declares that, by failing to bring into force within the
given a judgment on 26 November 2002, in which it:                                  period prescribed all the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                                    provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 97/11/
1.    Declares that, by not in sufficient measure classifying as special            EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the
      protection areas the territories most suitable for the conservation           assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects
      of the species of wild bird referred to in Annex I to Council                 on the environment, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
      Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of                   its obligations under that directive.
      wild birds, as amended by Commission Directive 97/49/EC of
      29 July 1997, and of migratory species, and, in particular, by          2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
      not classifying a sufficiently large area of the Plaine des Maures
      (France) as a special protection area, the French Republic has
      failed to comply with its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2)        (1 ) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
      of that directive;
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
                                                                                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                                       (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                                      of 5 November 2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                              in Case C-204/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                     the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Tilmann Klett v Bundes-
                                                                                   ministerin für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur (1)
                       of 19 November 2002
                                                                              (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom to
in Case C-319/01: Commission of the European Communi-                         provide services — Directives 78/686/EEC and 93/16/EEC
                  ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)                               — Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other
                                                                              evidence of formal qualifications — Access to training as a
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                        dental practitioner — Act of Accession of the Republic of
Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environ-                                                Austria)
                   ment — Directive 97/11/EC)
                                                                                                          (2003/C 7/11)
                            (2003/C 7/10)
                                                                                                  (Language of the case: German)
                     (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-204/01 P: reference to the Court under Article 234
In Case C-319/01, Commission of the European Communities                      EC from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
(Agents: G. zur Hausen and J. Adda) v Kingdom of Belgium                      ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between