CELEX: C2000/034/21
Language: en
Date: 2000-02-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-429/99: Action brought on 5 November 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

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
 ---pagebreak--- C 34/12                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.2.2000
may not, without infringing the directive, adopt legal pro-                 Action brought on 12 November 1999 by the Com-
visions which prohibit such a service. Article 47(1)(a) of                  mission of the European Communities against the Portu-
Decree-Law No 240/97 is therefore contrary to the directive                                          guese Republic
in so far as it prohibits the provision of ‘call-back’ services.
                                                                                                    (Case C-435/99)
(1) Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on compe-
     tition in the markets for telecommunications services (OJ 1990 L                                (2000/C 34/23)
     192, p. 10).
(2) Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending
     Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the implementation of full
                                                                            An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
     competition in telecommunications markets (OJ 1996 L 74,               the Court of Justice on 12 November 1999 by the Commission
     p. 13).                                                                of the European Communities, represented by Lena Ström,
                                                                            Legal Adviser, and António Caeiros, of its Legal Service, acting
                                                                            as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                            office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service,
                                                                            Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                            (a) Declare that, by not forwarding to the Commission the
                                                                                reports needed to comply with:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6, by
orders of that court of 30 September 1999 and 14 Octo-                          — Article 13(1) of Council Directive 76/464/EEC (1) of
ber 1999 in the cases of (1) Panarotta 2002 Srl against                             4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous
Ufficio Imposte Dirette di Trento; and (2) NTB SpA                                  substances discharged into the aquatic environment of
(formerly Nuova Tessilbrenta SpA) against Ufficio                                   the Community;
                Imposte Dirette di Tione di Trento
                                                                                — Article 14 of Council Directive 78/176/EEC (2) of
                                                                                    20 February 1978 on waste from the titanium dioxide
                   (Cases C-433/99 and C-434/99)                                    industry, as amended by Directive 83/29/EEC (3);
                            (2000/C 34/22)                                      — Article 16 of Council Directive 78/659/EEC (4) of
                                                                                    18 July 1978 on the quality of fresh waters needing
                                                                                    protection or improvement in order to support fish
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              life, as amended by the 1985 Act of Accession;
European Communities by orders of the Commissione Tributa-
ria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of First
Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 30 September 1999                           — Article 16(1) of Council Directive 80/68/EEC (5) of
and 14 October 1999, received at the Court Registry on                              17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater
11 November 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of                          against pollution caused by certain dangerous sub-
(1) Panarotta 2002 Srl against Ufficio Imposte Dirette di                           stances;
Trento; and (2) NTB SpA (formerly Nuova Tessilbrenta SpA)
against Ufficio Imposte Dirette di Tione di Trento on the                       — Article 5(1) and the first paragraph of Article 5(2) of
following question:                                                                 Council Directive 82/176/EEC(6) of 22 March 1982
                                                                                    on limit values and quality objectives for mercury
                                                                                    discharges by the chlor-alkali;
‘Is it compatible with Community law, and in particular with
Directive 69/335/EEC (1), to tax over a period of years at
the rate of 0,75 % per annum pursuant to Decree-Law                             — Article 5(1) and (2) of Council Directive 83/513/EEC (7)
No 394/1992 of 30 September 1992 that part of the taxable                           of 26 September 1983 on limit values and quality
base of the tax on net assets consisting of a company’s capital                     objectives for cadmium discharges;
disclosed annually by the balance sheet which has already
borne the tax on contributions of 1 %?’                                         — Article 6(1) of Council Directive 84/156/EEC (8) of
                                                                                    8 March 1984 on limit values and quality objectives
                                                                                    for mercury discharges by sectors other than the
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412).                                 chlor-alkali electrolysis industry;
                                                                                — Article 5(1) and (2) of Council Directive 84/491/EEC (9)
                                                                                    of 9 October 1984 on limit values and quality objec-
                                                                                    tives for discharges of hexachlorocyclohexane;