CELEX: C2000/302/06
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-21 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 27 June 2000 in Case C-404/97: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — State aid incompatible with the common market — Recovery — Absolute impossibility)

21.10.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 302/3
(Agent: G. Rozet) — application for the annulment of Com-                  Article 5(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of
mission Decision 1999/133/EC of 10 June 1998 concerning                    21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
State aid in favour of Coopérative d’Exportation du Livre                  relating to trade marks cannot be interpreted as meaning that where
Français (CELF) (OJ 1999 L 44, p. 37) — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the                     —     a trade mark has a particularly distinctive character, either per
Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann and                     se or because of the reputation it enjoys with the public, and
H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 22 June 2000, in which it:                   —     a third party, without the consent of the proprietor of the mark,
                                                                                 uses, in the course of trade in goods or services which are
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                      identical with, or similar to, those for which the trade mark is
                                                                                 registered, a sign which so closely corresponds to the mark as to
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                               give rise to the possibility of its being associated with that mark,
                                                                           the exclusive right enjoyed by the proprietor entitles him to prevent
(1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.                                                the use of the sign by that third party if the distinctive character of
                                                                           the mark is such that the possibility of such association giving rise to
                                                                           confusion cannot be ruled out.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 22 June 2000
in Case C-425/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Marca Mode CV v
               Adidas AG, Adidas Benelux BV (1)
                                                                                                       of 27 June 2000
(Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(1)(b) — Trade marks
— Likelihood of confusion — Likelihood of association                      in Case C-404/97: Commission of the European Communi-
             between the sign and the trade mark)                                             ties v Portuguese Republic (1)
                          (2000/C 302/05)
                                                                           (Failure to fulfil obligations — State aid incompatible with
                                                                            the common market — Recovery — Absolute impossibility)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                                       (2000/C 302/06)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In Case C-425/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) for a                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                       in the European Court Reports)
court between Marca Mode CV and Adidas AG, Adidas Benelux
BV — on the interpretation of Article 5(1)(b) of First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate                    In Case C-404/97: Commission of the European Communities
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ                  (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and A.M. Alves Vieira) v Portuguese
1989 L 40, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                     Republic (Agents: J. Mota de Campos, L. Fernandes and
of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber,                    M.L. Duarte) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and                   cancel and recover, within the prescribed period, the aid from
F. Macken, Judges; F. G. Jacobs; Advocate General; H. von                  which EPAC — Empresa para a Agroalimentação e Cereais, SA
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                 unduly benefited, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil
judgment on 22 June 2000, in which it has ruled:                           its obligations under Commission Decision 97/762/EC of
 ---pagebreak--- C 302/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           21.10.2000
9 July 1997 on measures taken by Portugal to assist EPAC —                 ation of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on
Empresa Para a Agroalimentação e Cereais, SA (OJ 1997                     unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) —
L 311, p. 25) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                    the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward,              L. Sevón (President of Chamber), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Cham-               J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann (Rapporteur), H. Ragne-
bers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm,                  malm, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris and F. Macken, Judges; A. Sag-
M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                gio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has                   the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 June 2000, in which
given a judgment on 27 June 2000, in which it:                             it held that:
1.    Declares that, by failing to comply with Commission Decision         1.     The protection provided for consumers by Council Directive
      97/762/EC of 9 July 1997 on measures taken by Portugal to                   93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer
      assist EPAC — Empresa Para a Agroalimentação e Cereais,                    contracts entails the national court being able to determine of
      SA, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations            its own motion whether a term of a contract before it is unfair
      under the Treaty;                                                           when making its preliminary assessment as to whether a claim
                                                                                  should be allowed to proceed before the national courts.
2.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           2.     The national court is obliged, when it applies national law
                                                                                  provisions predating or postdating the said Directive, to
(1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.                                                          interpret those provisions, so far as possible, in the light of the
                                                                                  wording and purpose of the Directive. The requirement for an
                                                                                  interpretation in conformity with the Directive requires the
                                                                                  national court, in particular, to favour the interpretation that
                                                                                  would allow it to decline of its own motion the jurisdiction
                                                                                  conferred on it by virtue of an unfair term.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 27 June 2000
in Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia
No 35 de Barcelona): Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Rocı́o
Murciano Quintero (C240/98) and Salvat Editores SA v                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
José M. Sánchez Alcón Prades (C-241/98), José Luis
Copano Badillo (C-242/98), Mohammed Berroane                                                           (First Chamber)
      (C-243/98) and Emilio Viñas Feliú (C-244/98) (1)
                                                                                                       of 29 June 2000
(Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts
— Jurisdiction clause — Power of the national court to
   examine of its own motion whether that clause is unfair)                in Case C-455/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           from the Tampereen Käräjäoikeus): Tullihallitus v Kaupo
                                                                                                  Salumets and Others (1)
                          (2000/C 302/07)
                                                                           (Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes
                                                                           — Common system of value added tax — Sixth Directive —
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         Tax on importation — Scope — Contraband importation of
                                                                                                         ethyl alcohol)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                      (2000/C 302/08)
In Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98: reference to the Court                                    (Language of the case: Finnish)
under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by
the Juzgado de Primera Instancia (Court of First Instance) No
35 de Barcelona, Spain, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
proceedings pending before that court between Océano Grupo
                                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
Editorial SA v Rocı́o Murciano Quintero (C-240/98) and Salvat
Editores SA v José M. Sánchez Alcón Prades (C-241/98), José
Luis Copano Badillo (C-242/98), Mohammed Berroane                          In Case C-455/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
(C-243/98) and Emilio Viñas Feliú (C-244/98), on the interpret-          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tampereen