CELEX: C2002/003/21
Language: en
Date: 2002-01-05 00:00:00
Title: Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht Lörrach by orders of 26 September 2001 in the cases of Bernhard Pfeiffer, Wilhelm Roith, Albert Süss, Michael Winter, Klaus Nestvogel, Roswitha Zeller and Matthias Döbele v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut e.V.

5.1.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 3/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht                  3.   Is Article 6 of Directive 93/104/EC in itself unconditional
Lörrach by orders of 26 September 2001 in the cases of                         and sufficiently precise to be capable of being relied on
Bernhard Pfeiffer, Wilhelm Roith, Albert Süss, Michael                         by individuals before national courts where the State has
Winter, Klaus Nestvogel, Roswitha Zeller and Matthias                          not properly transposed the directive into national law?
Döbele v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut
                               e.V.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 307, p. 18.
                 (Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01)                             (2) OJ L 183, p. 1.
                          (2002/C 3/21)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of 26 September 2001 of
the Arbeitsgericht Lörrach (Labour Court) Lörrach, which were
received at the Court Registry on 12 October 2001 in the                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
cases of Bernhard Pfeiffer (C-397/01), Wilhelm Roith                      Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 12 October
(C-398/01), Albert Süss (C-399/01), Michael Winter                        2001 in the case of 1. ADIDAS A.G. and 2. ADIDAS
(C-400/01), Klaus Nestvogel (C-401/01), Roswitha Zeller                    BENELUX B.V. against FITNESS WORLD TRADING Ltd
(C-402/01) and Matthias Döbele (C-403/01) v Deutsches
Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut e.V (German Red Cross,
Waldshut District Association) for a preliminary ruling on the                                    (Case C-408/01)
following questions:
                                                                                                    (2002/C 3/22)
1(a) Is the reference in Article 1(3) of Council Directive
     93/104/EC (1) of 23 November 1993 concerning certain
     aspects of the organisation of working time to Article 2(2)
     of Council Directive 89/391/EEC (2) of 12 June 1989 on
     the introduction of measures to encourage improvements
     in the safety and health of workers at work, under which             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     the directives are not applicable where characteristics              European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
     peculiar to certain specific activities in the civil protection      Nederlanden of 12 October 2001, which was received at the
     services inevitably conflict with their application, to be           Court Registry on 15 October 2001, for a preliminary ruling
     construed as meaning that the plaintiff’s activity as a              in the case of 1. ADIDAS A.G. and 2. ADIDAS BENELUX B.V.
     rescue worker is caught by this exclusion?                           against FITNESS WORLD TRADING Ltd on the following
                                                                          questions:
1(b) Is the concept of road transport in Article 1(3) of
     Directive 93/104/EC to be construed as meaning that                  1.   (a)   Must Article 5(2) of the Directive be interpreted as
     only those driving activities in which by their nature great                    meaning that, under a national law implementing
     distances are covered and, consequently, working times                          that provision, the proprietor of a trade mark which
     cannot be fixed owing to the unforeseeability of any                            is well known in the Member State concerned may
     difficulties are excluded from the scope of the directive,                      also oppose the use of the trade mark or a sign
     or is road transport within the meaning of this provision                       similar to it, in the manner and circumstances
     also to be taken to mean the activity of land-based rescue                      referred to therein, in relation to goods or services
     services, which comprises at least in part the driving of                       which are identical with or similar to those for
     rescue vehicles and attendance on patients during the                           which the trade mark is registered?
     journey?
                                                                               (b) If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the negative:
2.   In view of the judgment in Case C-303/98 Simap [2000]                           where Article 5(2) of the Directive is implemented
     ECR I-0000, paragraphs 73 and 74, is Article 18(1)(b)(i)                        in a national law, must the concept of ‘likelihood of
     of Directive 93/104/EC to be construed as meaning that                          confusion’ referred to in Article 5(1)(b) of the
     consent given individually by a worker must expressly                           Directive be interpreted as meaning that there
     refer to the extension of working time to more than                             exists such a likelihood if a person other than the
     48 hours per week, or may such consent also reside in                           proprietor of the trade mark uses a well-known
     the worker’s agreeing with the employer, in the contract                        trade mark or a sign similar to it, in the manner and
     of employment, that working conditions are to be                                circumstances referred to in Article 5(2) of the
     governed by a collective agreement which itself allows                          Directive, in relation to goods or services which are
     working time to be extended to more than 48 hours on                            identical with or similar to those for which the trade
     average?                                                                        mark is registered?