CELEX: C2002/169/10
Language: en
Date: 2002-07-13 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 16 May 2002 in Case C-63/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Land Baden-Württemberg and Günther Schilling, participant: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, v Bezirksregierung Lüneburg and Hans-Otto Nehring, participant: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 — Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes — Implementing rules — Application for "livestock" aid — Checks on animals — Reduction of the amount of aid)

C 169/6                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            13.7.2002
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                            court between Michael Hölterhoff and Ulrich Freiesleben on
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                   the interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of First Council
                                                                            Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate
                            30 May 2002                                     the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989
                                                                            L 40, p. 1), the Court, composed of: P. Jann, President of the
in Case C-516/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                   Fifth Chamber, acting for the President, F. Macken, N. Colneric
the Berufungssenat V der Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,                    and S. von Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann
   Niederösterreich und Burgenland): Walter Schmid (1)                      (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and
(Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the                V. Skouris, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von
meaning of Article 234 EC — Lack of jurisdiction of the                     Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May
                          Court of Justice)                                 2002, in which it has ruled:
                          (2002/C 169/08)                                   Article 5(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December
                                                                            1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to
                   (Language of the case: German)                           trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a
                                                                            trade mark cannot rely on his exclusive right where a third party, in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      the course of commercial negotiations, reveals the origin of goods
                   in the European Court Reports)                           which he has produced himself and uses the sign in question solely to
                                                                            denote the particular characteristics of the goods he is offering for sale
In Case C-516/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234                  so that there can be no question of the trade mark used being
EC by the Berufungssenat V der Finanzlandesdirektion für                    perceived as a sign indicative of the undertaking of origin.
Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Austria) for a prelimi-
nary ruling in the proceedings brought by Walter Schmid, on                 (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
the interpretation of Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty
(now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr,
D.A.O. Edward, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Tim-
mermans, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 May 2002, in which it
has ruled:
                                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction
to answer the questions referred by the Berufungssenat V der                                          (Sixth Chamber)
Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland,
by order of 2 December 1999.
                                                                                                         16 May 2002
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                            in Case C-63/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Land Baden-Württem-
                                                                            berg and Günther Schilling, participant: Oberbundesan-
                                                                            walt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, v Bezirksregierung
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      Lüneburg and Hans-Otto Nehring, participant: Oberbun-
                                                                                    desanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (1)
                            14 May 2002
                                                                            (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC) No 3887/
in Case C-2/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     92 — Integrated administration and control system for
the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf): Michael Hölterhoff v                     certain Community aid schemes — Implementing rules —
                       Ulrich Freiesleben (1)                               Application for ‘livestock’ aid — Checks on animals —
                                                                                             Reduction of the amount of aid)
(Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/
104/EEC — Article 5(1) — Scope of the proprietor’s
exclusive right to the trade mark — Third party — Use of                                               (2002/C 169/10)
            the trade mark for descriptive purposes)
                                                                                               (Language of the case: German)
                          (2002/C 169/09)
                   (Language of the case: German)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-63/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
In Case C-2/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                 by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary
by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) for a                         ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
 ---pagebreak--- 13.7.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 169/7
Land Baden-Württemberg and Günther Schilling, participant:                  ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court
Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, and                         against Kenny Roland Lyckeskog, on the interpretation of the
Bezirksregierung Lüneburg and Hans-Otto Nehring, partici-                   third paragraph of Article 234 EC and of Article 45(1) of
pant: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, on                    Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983
the interpretation of the first and second sentences of the first           setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty
subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)                (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC)
No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules                   No 355/94 of 14 February 1994 (OJ 1994 L 46, p. 5), the
for applying the integrated administration and control system               Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,
for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36), the               F. Macken, N. Colneric, and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur),                 Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skou-                J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet, V. Skouris, J.N.
ris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate                    Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,             General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 June
has given a judgment on 16 May 2002, in which it has ruled:                 2002, in which it has ruled:
On a proper construction of the first and second sentences of the first
subparagraph of Article 10(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for
applying the integrated administration and control system for certain       1.    Where the decisions of a national court or tribunal can be
Community aid schemes, the unit amount of the aid must be reduced                 appealed to the supreme court under conditions such as those
even where the discrepancy between the number of animals declared                 that apply to decisions of the referring court in the present case,
and the number of animals found during checks is not attributable to              that court or tribunal is not under the obligation referred to in
incorrect information given by the applicant but to the fact that the             the third paragraph of Article 234 EC.
necessary conditions for the grant of the premiums are not satisfied
in regard to certain animals.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.                                                  2.    The question whether an importation of goods is non-
                                                                                  commercial, within the meaning of Article 45(2)(b) of Council
                                                                                  Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up
                                                                                  a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, as amended
                                                                                  by Council Regulation (EC) No 355/94 of 14 February 1994,
                                                                                  must be examined case by case on the basis of an overall
                                                                                  assessment of the circumstances, taking into account the nature
                                                                                  of the importation and the quantity of goods involved, the
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           frequency with which those goods are imported by the traveller
                                                                                  concerned, but also, where appropriate, taking account of that
                                                                                  traveller’s lifestyle and habits or of his family environment.
                             4 June 2002
in Case C-99/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Hovrätten för Västra Sverige): Kenny Roland                        3.    Article 45 of Regulation No 918/83, as amended by
                             Lyckeskog (1)                                        Regulation No 355/94, precludes national administrative
                                                                                  instructions or practices which impose binding quantitative
(Questions for a preliminary ruling — Obligation to refer                         limits on relief from customs duties or which would have
— Court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no                           the effect of creating an irrebuttable presumption that the
judicial remedy under national law — Interpretation of                            importation concerned is commercial by reason of the quantity
Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 — Community system of                                  of goods imported.
                     reliefs from customs duty)
                           (2002/C 169/11)
                    (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-99/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Hovrätt för Västra Sverige (Sweden) for a preliminary