CELEX: C2001/079/34
Language: en
Date: 2001-03-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-23/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep te Brussel by order of 15 January 2001 in the case of NV Robelco and NV Robeco Groep

10.3.2001              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 79/19
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Beroep              The Applicant claims that the Court should:
te Brussel by order of 15 January 2001 in the case of NV
               Robelco and NV Robeco Groep                            —     declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations
                                                                            and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                            European Parliament and Council Directive 98/4/EC (1) of
                         (Case C-23/01)                                     16 February 1998 amending Directive 93/38/EEC (2)
                                                                            coordinating the procurement procedures of entities
                                                                            operating in the water, energy, transport and telecom-
                         (2001/C 79/34)                                     munications sectors or by failing to adopt the measures
                                                                            to comply with it, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil
                                                                            its obligations under Article 2(1) of the said Directive;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 15 January 2001 by the
                                                                      —     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Court of Appeal, Brussels), which
was received at the Court Registry on 22 January 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of NV Robelco and NV Robeco
Groep on the following questions:                                     Pleas in law and main arguments
—    Must Article 5(5) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC          Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
     of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the               a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
     Member States relating to trade marks be interpreted             upon each Member State carries by implication an obligation
     as meaning that the possibility laid down therein for            on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
     protection by Member States can be afforded only against         laid down in the directive. That period expired on 16 February
     the use of a sign which is identical to the trade mark or        1999 without the United Kingdom having enacted the pro-
     can it also be afforded in that case against the use of a        visions necessary to comply with the directive referred to in
     sign similar to the trade mark?                                  the conclusions of the Commission.
—    If that protection can also be afforded against a sign           (1) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998, p. 1.
     similar to the trade mark, does unlawful similarity within       (2) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84.
     the meaning of the abovementioned article require that
     confusion can arise as a consequence or is likelihood of
     association sufficient, in the sense that in the minds of
     those confronted by the trade mark and the sign one
     will suggest the other without any confusion resulting
     therefrom, or must no likelihood of association at all
     exist in this respect?
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
                                                                      di Cassazione — Sezione Tributaria by order of that court
                                                                      of 12 July 2000 in the case of Enirisorse SpA against
                                                                                          Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                                         (Case C-34/01 to C-38/01)
                                                                                               (2001/C 79/36)
Action brought on 24 January 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the United Kingdom                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di
                                                                      Cassazione — Sezione Tributaria (Supreme Court of Cassation,
                         (Case C-31/01)                               Tax Chamber) of 12 July 2000, which was received at the
                                                                      Court Registry on 25 January 2001, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                      in the case of Enirisorse SpA against Ministero delle Finanze
                         (2001/C 79/35)                               on the following questions:
                                                                      1.    Does allocation to a public undertaking — operating in
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the                 the market for dockside unloading and loading of goods
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 January                  — of a significant proportion of a charge (port charge on
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         loading and unloading goods) paid to the State by
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal                       operators which have not obtained any services from that
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                    undertaking, constitute a special or exclusive right or a
Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                    measure contrary to the rules of the Treaty, in particular
member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Centre                       the rules on competition, within the meaning of Article
Wagner.                                                                     90(1) of the Treaty?