CELEX: C2001/118/11
Language: en
Date: 2001-04-21 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 14 December 2000 in Case C-344/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland)): Masterfoods Ltd v HB Ice Cream Ltd and HB Ice Cream Ltd v Masterfoods Ltd, trading as "Mars Ireland" (Competition — Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) — Parallel proceedings before national and Community courts)

21.4.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 118/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          particular Article 177 thereof (now Article 234 EC), the Court
                                                                                 of Justice has jurisdiction to interpret Article 50 of the TRIPs
                       of 14 December 2000                                       Agreement.
                                                                           2.    In a field to which the TRIPs Agreement applies and in respect
in Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98 (references for a                          of which the Community has already legislated, the judicial
preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank                             authorities of the Member States are required by virtue of
’s-Gravenhage and the Hoge Raad Der Nederlanden):                                Community law, when called upon to apply national rules with
Parfums Christian Dior SA v Tuk Consultancy BV                                   a view to ordering provisional measures for the protection of
(C-300/98), and Assco Gerüste GmbH and Rob van Dijk,                             rights falling within such a field, to do so as far as possible in
trading as ‘Assco Holland Steigers Plettac Nederland’                            the light of the wording and purpose of Article 50 of the TRIPs
v Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV                                     Agreement.
                             (C-392/98) (1)
                                                                                 In a field in which the Community has not yet legislated and
(Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation —                           which consequently falls within the competence of the Member
TRIPs Agreement — Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now                              States, the protection of intellectual property rights, and
Article 234 EC) — Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice —                         measures adopted for that purpose by the judicial authorities,
Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement — Provisional measures                         do not fall within the scope of Community law. Accordingly,
                — Interpretation — Direct effect)                                Community law neither requires nor forbids that the legal order
                                                                                 of a Member State should accord to individuals the right to rely
                                                                                 directly on the rule laid down by Article 50(6) of the TRIPs
                           (2001/C 118/10)                                       Agreement or that it should oblige the courts to apply that rule
                                                                                 of their own motion.
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                         3.    Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement leaves to the Contracting
                                                                                 Parties, within the framework of their own legal systems, the
                                                                                 task of specifying whether the right to sue under general
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           provisions of national law concerning wrongful acts, in particu-
                    in the European Court Reports)                               lar unlawful competition, in order to protect an industrial
                                                                                 design against copying is to be classified as an ‘Intellectual
In Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98: references to the                         property right’ within the meaning of Article 50(1) of the
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article                            TRIPs Agreement.
234 EC) from the Arrondissementsrechtbank ’s-Gravenhage
(Netherlands) (C-300/98) and the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden                 (1) OJ C 229 of 26.9.1998.
(Netherlands) (C-392/98) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before those courts between Parfums
Christian Dior SA and Tuk Consultancy BV (C-300/98) and
between Assco Gerüste GmbH and Rob van Dijk, trading as
‘Assco Holland Steigers Plettac Nederland’, and Wilhelm Layher
GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV (C-392/98) — on the
interpretation of Article 50 of the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, as set out in Annex 1 C                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation,
approved on behalf of the Community, as regards matters
within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of                                           of 14 December 2000
22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 1) — the Court,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,              in Case C-344/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of                   the Supreme Court (Ireland)): Masterfoods Ltd v HB Ice
Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,                   Cream Ltd and HB Ice Cream Ltd v Masterfoods Ltd,
P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges;                                        trading as ‘Mars Ireland’ (1)
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December 2000, in                    (Competition — Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now
which it has ruled:                                                        Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) — Parallel proceedings before
                                                                                            national and Community courts)
1.    Where the judicial authorities of the Member States are called
      upon to order provisional measures for the protection of
      intellectual property rights falling within the scope of the                                   (2001/C 118/11)
      Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
      Rights (the TRIPs Agreement), as set out in Annex 1 C to
      the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation,                                  (Language of the case: English)
      approved on behalf of the Community, as regards matters
      within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of              In Case C-344/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      22 December 1994, and a case is brought before the Court of          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Supreme Court
      Justice in accordance with. the provisions of the EC Treaty, in      (Ireland) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
 ---pagebreak--- C 118/8                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                      21.4.2001
before that court between Masterfoods Ltd and HB Ice Cream                  Ferdinando Pavan and Others v AIMA and the Ministry
Ltd and between HB Ice Cream Ltd and Masterfoods Ltd,                       of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-493/00);
trading as ‘Mars Ireland’ — on the interpretation of Articles 85,           Associazione dei Produttori di Latte delle Terre del
86 and 222 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and                  Granducato ed altre Aziende v AIMA and the Ministry of
295 EC), — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,                the Treasury, the Budget and Planning and the Regione
President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and                       Toscana (Case C-494/00); Associazione Agricola Produtto-
V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,                         ri Castellani s.c.a.r.l. and Others v AIMA and the Ministry
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen             of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-496/00);
and F. Macken, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General;                         Aziende Agricole Pietro Baita and Others v AIMA and
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                   the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy
judgment on 14 December 2000, in which it has ruled:                        (C-500/00), and Giorgio Accarini and Others v AIMA and
                                                                            the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning
                                                                                                        (C-21/01)
Where a national court is ruling on an agreement or practice the
compatibility of which with Articles 85(1) and 86 of the EC Treaty
(now Articles 81(1) EC and Article 82 EC) is already the subject of
a Commission decision, it cannot take a decision running counter to         (Cases C-483/00, C-485/00 to C-488/00, C-492/00 to
that of the Commission, even if the latter’s decision conflicts with a              C-494/00, C-496/00, C-500/00 and C-21/01)
decision given by a national court of first instance. If the addressee of
the Commission decision has, within the period prescribed in the fifth
paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC), brought an action for
annulment of that decision, it is for the national court to decide
whether to stay proceedings pending final judgment in that action for
annulment or in order to refer a question to the Court for a
preliminary ruling.                                                                                  (2001/C 118/12)
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                                                                            References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by orders of 6 July 2000 of the
                                                                            Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
                                                                            the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
                                                                            ruling in the cases of Azienda Agricola Nardoni di Benedetto
                                                                            Nardoni v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato
                                                                            Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget
                                                                            and Planning (Case C-483/00); Azienda Agricola Antonio
                                                                            Tonon v AIMA, the other party being the Ministry of
                                                                            the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-485/00); Azienda
                                                                            Agricola Beniamino Brutti, by Mario Zanetti and Others v
                                                                            AIMA, the other party being the Ministry of the Treasury,
                                                                            the Budget and Planning (Case C-486/00), also Cooperativa
References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                        Agricola Latte 2001 and Others; Cooperativa Nuova Latte s.r.l.
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by orders of that                     v AIMA and the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy
court of 6 July 2000 in the cases of Azienda Agricola                       (C-487/00); Azienda Agricola Fermo and Gabriele Borini
Nardoni di Benedetto Nardoni v Azienda di Stato per gli                     (C-488/00); Giuseppe de Marchi and Others (C-492/00);
Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry                     Ferdinando Pavan and Others v AIMA and the Ministry of the
of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-483/00);                   Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-493/00); Associazione
Azienda Agricola Antonio Tonon v AIMA, the other                            dei Produttori di Latte delle Terre del Granducato ed altre
party being the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and                    Aziende v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget
Planning (C-485/00); Azienda Agricola Beniamino Brutti,                     and Planning and the Regione Toscana (Case C-494/00);
by Mario Zanetti and Others v AIMA, the other party                         Associazione Agricola Produttori Castellani s.c.a.r.l. and Others
being the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and                          v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and
Planning (Case C-486/00), also Cooperativa Agricola Latte                   Planning (C-496/00); Aziende Agricole Pietro Baita and Others
2001 and Others; Cooperativa Nuova Latte s.r.l. v AIMA                      v AIMA and the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy
and the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy                        (C-500/00), and Giorgio Accarini and Others v AIMA and the
(C-487/00); Azienda Agricola Fermo and Gabriele Borini                      Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-21/01)
(C-488/00); Giuseppe de Marchi and Others (C-492/00);                       on the following questions: