CELEX: C2000/247/36
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-258/00: Action brought on 28 June 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

C 247/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       26.8.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration                     Action brought on 28 June 2000 by the Commission of
Appeal Tribunal, by order of that court of 28 April 2000,                  the European Communities against the French Republic
in the case of Nani Givane and others against the Secretary
               of State for the Home Department
                                                                                                   (Case C-258/00)
                         (Case C-257/00)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 247/36)
                         (2000/C 247/35)
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 June
European Communities by an order of the Immigration Appeal                2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Tribunal of 28 April 2000, which was received at the Court                represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service, with an
Registry on 26 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case            address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
of Nani Givane and others against the Secretary of State for              Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
the Home Department, on the following questions:                          Kirchberg.
1.    Whether Article 3(2) of Regulation 1251/70 (1) requires
                                                                          The Commission of the European Communities claims that
      that two-year period of continuous residence to be
                                                                          the Court should:
      established in the period immediately prior to a worker’s
      death, or whether it may be established by a period of
      continuous residence which occurs at an earlier point in            —     declare that, by failing to take appropriate steps to identify
      the worker’s life;                                                        waters affected by pollution and, in consequence, to
                                                                                designate the corresponding vulnerable zones, as pro-
2.    If the said two year period is not required to be established             vided for by Article 3 and Annex I to Directive 91/676/
      immediately prior to the worker’s death, then, once such                  EEC (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
      a two year period of residence has been established by                    gations under that directive;
      the worker, can the benefit of the accrued rights deriving
      from that period be retained after periods of absence               —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
      from the host EU state in excess of the three months
      specified in Article 4(1) (which have the effect of breaking
      the period of continuous residence in the host State in
      question);                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
3.    If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, whether
      the consequential right to retain the benefit of past               Incomplete identification of waters which are or could be
      periods of continuous residence, despite subsequent                 affected by pollution, resulting in an incomplete designation
      breaks in residence, is subject to any limitations;                 of vulnerable zones.
4.    If the answer to question 3 is in the affirmative, what             —     Eutrophication has not been taken into account in a
      those limitations are; and what factors must be considered                precise fashion. By limiting the identification of eutrophic
      by the national court in seeking to establish whether                     waters pursuant to Directive 91/676/EEC to circum-
      breaks in the continuity of residence have broken the                     stances in which nitrogen causing pollution by nitrates
      entitlement to rely on past periods of residence.                         constitutes the ‘key factor’ giving rise to eutrophication,
                                                                                that is to say, the factor in respect of which a deficit will
5.    Whether the benefit of Article 3(2) may be claimed by                     be the first thing to become apparent (compared to
      the deceased worker’s family members, in circumstances                    phosphorus), and thus by specifically limiting it to coastal
      in which the worker’s 10-month period of absence                          waters and stagnant, brackish shallow waters, and by
      represents less than a third of the period of continuous                  contrariwise excluding such identification where the key
      residence prior to the absence, and less than a fifth of the              factor is the presence of phosphorus rather than nitrogen,
      total time spent by the worker in the host state prior to                 the circular issued by the Minister for the Environment
      his death.                                                                on 5 November 1992 concerning the initial designation
                                                                                of vulnerable zones gives the competent authorities
                                                                                instructions which do not correspond to a proper appli-
                                                                                cation of Article 3 and Annex I to the directive. Although,
(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of the Commission of 29 June                    in consequence of the judgment delivered by the Court
    1970 on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a
    Member State after having been employed in that State (OJ L 142,
                                                                                in Case C-293/97 (2), the French authorities expressly
    30.6.1970, p. 24[SE SER1 70 (II) p. 402]).                                  acknowledged the validity of the interpretation advocated
                                                                                by the Commission, that circular has not been amended
                                                                                or cancelled. The Commission states that, on a proper
                                                                                application of the directive, the Seine bay should have
                                                                                been identified as eutrophic.
 ---pagebreak--- 26.8.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 247/25
—     The Commission confirms the finding made in the                  received at the Court Registry on 29 June 2000, for a
      reasoned opinion, to the effect that the subterranean            preliminary ruling in the case of Gründerzentrum-Betriebs-
      waters of the department of the Oise should have been            GmbH against Land Baden-Württemberg on the following
      identified as affected by pollution within the meaning of        question:
      Article 3(1) of the directive.
                                                                       In the case of operations to which Article 4(3) of Directive
                                                                       69/335/EEC (1) refers, are fees for the recording and certifi-
(1) OJ L 375 of 31.12.1991, p. 1.
                                                                       cation of documents by notaries in the civil service of the Land
(2) [1999] ECR I-2603.
                                                                       Baden-Württemberg in the Higher Regional Court District of
                                                                       Karlsruhe caught by the prohibition under Article 10 of that
                                                                       directive so that the fees may be charged only in accordance
                                                                       with the actual costs incurred by the notaries for the service in
                                                                       question?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
München by order of that court of 19 April 2000 in
the case of Biochem Zusatzstoffe Handels-Produktions
GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, Außenstelle
                             München
                         (Case C-259/00)                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Benelux Court
                                                                       of Justice by judgment of 26 June 2000 in the case of
                                                                            Campina Melkunie B.V. v Benelux-Merkenbureau
                         (2000/C 247/37)
                                                                                                 (Case C-265/00)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Münch-                                        (2000/C 247/39)
en (Financial Court, Munich) of 19 April 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 28 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the case of Biochem Zusatzstoffe Handels- Produktions GmbH             European Communities by judgment of 26 June 2000 by the
v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, Außenstelle München, on                Benelux Court of Justice, which was received at the Court
the following question:                                                Registry on 29 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                       of Campina Melkunie B.V. v Benelux-Merkenbureau (Benelux
Is the combined nomenclature in the version of Annex I to              Trade Marks Office) on the following questions:
Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 (1) (OJ L 312) of 4 November
1997 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)                      A.   Must Articles 2 and 3(1) of First Council Directive
No 2658/87 (2) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and               89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the
on the Common Customs Tariff to be interpreted as meaning                   laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) be
that immunoglobulin concentrates from dried, defatted and                   construed as meaning that, in determining whether a sign
decaseinated colostrum, standardised by means of lactose, are               consisting of a new word made up of a number of
to be classified as pharmaceutical products in chapter 30?                  component parts has a sufficiently distinctive character
                                                                            to be capable of serving as a mark for the goods in
                                                                            question, one has to proceed on the assumption that this
(1) OJ L 312 of 14.11.1997, p. 1.                                           question is in principle to be answered in the affirmative
(2) OJ L 256 of 7.9.1987, p. 1.                                             even if each of those component parts is in itself devoid
                                                                            of any distinctive character for those goods, and that the
                                                                            position will be different only if there are attendant
                                                                            circumstances, for instance if the new word constitutes
                                                                            an indication, which is obvious and directly comprehen-
                                                                            sible for any person, of a commercially essential combi-
                                                                            nation of properties which cannot be indicated otherwise
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht                       than through use of the new word?
Mülheim/Baden by order of that court of 20 June 2000 in
the case of Gründerzentrum-Betriebs-GmbH against Land                  B.   If Question A is to be answered in the negative: must it
                      Baden-Württemberg                                     then be assumed that a sign consisting of a new word
                                                                            which is made up of different component parts, each of
                                                                            which is in itself devoid of any distinctive character for
                         (Case C-264/00)
                                                                            the goods in question within the meaning of Article 3(1)
                                                                            of the Directive, is itself also devoid of any distinctive
                         (2000/C 247/38)                                    character, and that the situation may be different only if
                                                                            there are attendant circumstances which result in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      combination of the component parts being greater than
European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht Müllheim/                  the sum of those parts, for instance where the new word
Baden (Local Court, Müllheim/Baden) of 20 June 2000,                        indicates a certain creativity?