CELEX: C2000/302/29
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-288/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of 27 April 2000 in the case of Fleischversorgung GmbH & Co. KG v Landrat of Neuss Local Authority

21.10.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 302/15
Does the standard fee applicable under                                          decisions to classify certain actions as ‘new aid’ within the
                                                                                meaning of Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after
(a)   Council Directive 85/73/EEC (1) of 29 January 1985 in                     amendment, Article 87 EC) and to initiate the procedure
      conjunction with Council Decision 88/408/EEC (2) of                       under Article 88(2) EC (ex Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty)
      15 June 1988;                                                             if they consider that the measures in question are ‘existing
                                                                                aid’ falling to be treated under the different procedure
(b) Council Directive 85/73/EEC, as amended by Council                          provided for in Article 88(1) EC (ex Article 93(1) of the
      Directive 93/118/EEC (3) of 22 December 1993,                             EC Treaty).
      for the inspection of fresh meat intended for the domestic
      market in accordance with Council Directive 64/433/                  2.   The Italian Republic submits that the Commission mani-
      EEC (4) of 26 June 1964,                                                  festly erred in law in deciding what legal basis was
                                                                                appropriate for assessing the compatibility with Com-
(a)   as amended by Directive 89/662/EEC (5) of 11 December                     munity law of the national provisions at issue: it should
      1989;                                                                     have carried out its own exhaustive analysis exclusively
(b) as amended by Directive 91/497/EEC(6) of 29 July 1991,                      in relation to the provisions of the postal directive. That
                                                                                error as regards legal basis led in this case to a clear
                                                                                infringement of essential procedural requirements and
applicable pursuant to Council Directive 88/409/EEC (7) of                      misuse of powers, in that a procedure under Article 86(3)
15 June 1988, also cover the costs involved in carrying out                     EC was initiated, whereas any criticism alleging incorrect
inspections of fresh pigmeat for trichinae?                                     transposition of the postal directive should have been
                                                                                made under the procedure provided for in Article 226 EC
( 1) OJ 1985 L 32, p. 14.                                                       (ex Article 169 of the EC Treaty).
( 2) OJ 1988 L 194, p. 24.
( 3) OJ 1993 L 340, p. 15.
( 4) OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 185.                             By taking that course of action, the Commission also
( 5) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13.                                                      infringed Article 86(3) EC, which was not applicable to
( 6) OJ 1991 L 268, p. 69.                                                      this case, and Article 226 EC, through wrongful failure to
( 7) OJ 1988 L 194, p. 28.                                                      apply the latter.
                                                                                Finally, no reasons whatsoever were given for the Com-
                                                                                mission’s choosing a procedure different from that pre-
                                                                                scribed by Article 226 of the Treaty, although a statement
                                                                                of reasons was particularly necessary in view of the grave
Action brought on 20 July 2000 by the Italian Republic                          consequences of the choice made.
     against Commission of the European Communities
                           (Case C-286/00)
                           (2000/C 302/28)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 20 July 2000
by the Italian Republic, represented by Ivo M. Braguglia and
Francesca Quadri, Avvocati dello Stato, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-
Adélaïde.                                                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
                                                                           tungsgericht by order of 27 April 2000 in the case of
                                                                           Fleischversorgung GmbH & Co. KG v Landrat of Neuss
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                   Local Authority
—     annul the Commission’s letter of formal notice No SG
      (2000) — D/103687 dated 16 May 2000;
                                                                                                   (Case C-288/00)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                                   (2000/C 302/29)
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
1.    The Italian Republic observes that letters before action,            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      despite being a preliminary to a possible decision under             European Communities by order of 27 April 2000 by the
      Article 86 EC (ex Article 90 of the EC Treaty), nevertheless         Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court),
      constitute measures which have external repercussions                which was received at the Court Registry on 21 July 2000, for
      and give rise immediately to adverse legal effects for their         a preliminary ruling in the case of Fleischversorgung GmbH &
      addressees. Accordingly, it is clear that the Member                 Co. KG v Landrat (Administrative Head) of Neuss Local
      States and interested parties may challenge Commission               Authority on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- C 302/16                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   21.10.2000
Does the standard fee applicable under Council Directive                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
85/73/EEC (1) of 29 January 1985, in conjunction with Council              di Cassazione (Sezione Terza Civile) (Supreme Court of
Decision 88/408/EEC (2) of 15 June 1988, for the inspection                Cassation, Third Civil Chamber) by interlocutory order
of fresh meat intended for the domestic market in accordance               of that court of 18 April 2000 in the case of the Prefect of
with Council Directive 64/433/EEC (3) of 26 June 1964, as                  the Province of Cuneo against Silvano Carbone as sole
amended by Directive 89/662/EEC (4) of 11 December 1989,                   director of the private limited company ‘Expo Casa Manta
applicable pursuant to Council Directive 88/409/EEC (5) of                                                Srl’
15 June 1988, also cover the costs involved in carrying out a
bacteriological inspection required in an individual case?
                                                                                                 (Case C-296/2000)
( 1) OJ 1985 L 32, p. 14.                                                                          (2000/C 302/31)
( 2) OJ 1988 L 194, p. 24.
( 3) OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 185.
( 4) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13.                                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( 5) OJ 1988 L 194, p. 28.                                                 European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di
                                                                           Cassazione (Sezione Terza Civile) of 18 April 2000, received
                                                                           at the Court Registry on 1 August 2000, for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the case of the Province of Cuneo against Silvano
                                                                           Carbone as sole director of the private limited company ‘Expo
                                                                           Casa Manta Srl’ on the following question:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                  ‘Does a provision of national law which requires prior approval
hof, by judgment of that court of 27 April 2000, in the                    of cordless telephones coming from third countries for the
case of Davidoff & Company and Zino Davidoff SA v                          purposes of their being placed on the market only and not
                             GOFKID Ltd                                    also of their importation fall within the scope of Council
                                                                           Regulation (EC) No 519/94 (1) of 7 March 1994 and Council
                                                                           Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 (2) of 22 December 1994 on
                           (Case C-292/00)                                 common rules for imports from certain third countries?’
                           (2000/C 302/30)
                                                                           (1) OJ L 67 of 10 March 1994, p. 89.
                                                                           (2) OJ L 349 of 31 December 1994, p. 53.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 27 April 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 31 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Davidoff & Company SA and Zino Davidoff SA v
GOFKID Ltd on the following questions:
1.    Are the provisions of Article 4(4)(a) and Article 5(2) of
      First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
      1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States                    Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Regional Adminis-
      relating to trade marks (1) to be interpreted (and where             trative Court for Lazio) by judgment of that court of
      appropriate so applied) as also entitling the Member                 31 May and 6 July 2000 in the case of M. Balestreri and
      States to retain rules protecting well-known marks in                          L. Maura against the Regione Lombardia
      cases where the later mark is used or to be used for goods
      or services identical with or similar to those in respect of                                 (Case C-303/00)
      which the earlier mark is registered?
2.    Are the grounds mentioned in Articles 4(4)(a) and 5(2) of                                    (2000/C 302/32)
      the Trade Mark Directive (use which without due cause
      takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark) exhaus-         European Communities by judgment of the Tribunale Ammini-
      tive in regulating when it is permissible for provisions             strativo Regionale per il Lazio of 31 May and 6 July 2000,
      protecting well-known marks to be retained under                     received at the Court Registry on 8 August 2000, for a
      national law, or may those articles be supplemented by               preliminary ruling in the case of M. Balestreri and L. Maura
      national rules protecting well-known marks against later             against the Regione Lombardia on the following questions:
      signs which are used or to be used in respect of identical
      or similar goods or services?
                                                                           (1) Do the provisions contained in Articles 1, 4, 6 and 7 of
                                                                                 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.                                                          1992 (1) and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
                                                                                 (EEC) No 534/92 of 9 March 1993 (2) permit derogation
                                                                                 from the time-limits for the allocation of quotas, and thus
                                                                                 for adjustments and levies, where it is found, when