CELEX: C1999/020/33
Language: en
Date: 1999-01-23 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 24 November 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-421/98)

C 20/20               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  23.1.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                      on 24 November 1998 by the Commission of the
Circondariale di Genova by order of that court of                      European Communities, represented by I. Martínez del
26 September 1998 in the case of Marcella Moretti v.                   Peral and B. Mongin, of its Legal Service, with an address
                Banco Ambrosiano Veneto SpA                            for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez
                                                                       de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                        (Case C-419/98)
                         (1999/C 20/32)
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Pretura
Circondariale di Genova (District Magistrate's Court,                  (1) declare that, by providing, in the second paragraph of
Genoa) of 26 September 1998, which was received at the                       Article 10 of Royal Decree No 1081/1989 (1) of
Court Registry on 23 November 1998, for a preliminary                        28 August 1989, that architects qualified in other
ruling in the case of Marcella Moretti v. Banco                              Member States whose qualifications are recognised
Ambrosiano Veneto SpA, on the following questions:                           under Council Directive 85/384/EEC (2) of 10 June
                                                                             1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas,
                                                                             certificates   and   other     evidence    of   formal
1. Whether the Norme Bancarie Uniforme (Uniform                              qualifications in architecture, including measures to
     Bank Rules) laid down by the ABI (1) for its members                    facilitate the effective exercise of the right of
     in relation to contracts for the opening of current                     establishment and freedom to provide services may
     account credit facilities Ð since they are laid down                    not pursue in Spain any professional activities other
     and applied in a uniform and binding manner by the                      than those which they are authorised to carry on in
     banks belonging to the ABI Ð are compatible with                        their country of origin pursuant to the qualifications
     Article 85 of the Treaty, where they make the credit                    obtained by them there, save in collaboration with
     facility subject to conditions for determination of an                  another professional person authorised to carry on
     interest rate which is not previously determined and is                 those activities and holding a professional
     not determinable by the customer, and they are liable                   qualification which is also recognised under Spanish
     adversely to affect trade between the Member States                     law', the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
     and have as their object and effect the prevention,                     obligations under Articles 2 and 10 of Directive
     restriction or distortion of competition within the                     85/384/EEC;
     Common Market;
2. What effects any finding of incompatibility in                      (2) order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
     accordance with 1 above may have on the
     corresponding clauses of the contracts for the opening
     of a current account credit facility, concluded
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     downstream' by member banks with individual
     customers, since, as a group, the banks belonging to
     the ABI may be regarded, within the meaning and for
     the purposes of Article 86 of the Treaty, as holding a            Articles 2 and 10 of Directive 85/384/EEC lay down the
     joint dominant position in the national credit market,            fundamental principle that persons holding diplomas,
     whose specific application of the rules in question (in           certificates or other formal qualifications in architecture
     connection with determination of the interest payable             awarded by a Member State other than the host Member
     on the loan) is regarded as an abuse.                             State are to have the same rights and be subject to the
                                                                       same obligations as persons possessing such qualifications
(1) Associazione Bancaria Italiana Ð Italian Banking Association.      in the host Member State. Where an architectural
                                                                       qualification constitutes evidence that its holder has
                                                                       received training which meets the requirements of
                                                                       Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 85/384/EEC, the principle of
                                                                       mutual recognition must apply, without the host Member
                                                                       State being entitled to call in question the quality of the
                                                                       training undergone in the Member State of origin.
                                                                       Moreover, the Community legislature, conscious of the
Action brought on 24 November 1998 by the Commission
                                                                       fact that architectural training may be more
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                       comprehensive in the host Member State, has expressly
                               Spain
                                                                       provided, in Article 16(2) of the Directive, for a
                        (Case C-421/98)                                mechanism guaranteeing adequate protection to recipients
                                                                       of architectural services, whereby the host Member State
                         (1999/C 20/33)                                may regulate the use of professional titles in such a way as
                                                                       to require a migrant architect to provide evidence of the
                                                                       title employed by him in his Member State of origin or the
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought                     Member State from which he comes. Where a migrant
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                architect is unable to show that he has undergone the
 ---pagebreak--- 23.1.1999               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 20/21
additional training required in order to obtain the                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
corresponding title in the host Member State, Article 16               der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 6 November
provides that that State may require the migrant architect             1998 in the case of Marca Mode CV against 1. Adidas AG
to use the title employed in his Member State of origin or                               and 2. Adidas Benelux BV
the Member State from which he comes in a suitable
form' to be specified by the host Member State. The                                           (Case C-425/98)
Directive does not authorise the host Member State to                                          (1999/C 20/35)
adopt other measures, such as the imposition of an
obligation requiring the architect in question to work in
collaboration with a professional person who is qualified
in the host Member State to pursue to the activities for
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
which the migrant architect has not received the
                                                                       European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
prescribed training. Such measures constitute a
                                                                       der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
disproportionate restriction on the architect's freedom of
                                                                       6 November 1998, received at the Court Registry on
establishment and, a fortiori, on freedom to provide
                                                                       26 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
services.
                                                                       Marca Mode CV against 1. Adidas AG and 2. Adidas
                                                                       Benelux BV on the following question:
(1) Boletin Oficial del Estado No 214 of 7 September 1989.
(2) OJ L 223, 21.8.1985, p. 15.
                                                                       Where:
                                                                       (a) a trade mark has a particularly distinctive character,
                                                                            either per se or because of the reputation it enjoys
                                                                            with the public; and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
PremieÁre Instance de Bruxelles (Sixth Chamber) by
judgment of that court of 10 November 1998 in the case
of Colonia Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft, Zweignieder-               (b) a third party, without the consent of the proprietor of
lassung München and 17 others against the Belgian State,                    the mark, uses, in the course of trade in goods or
  Minister of Finance, Customs and Excise Administration                    services which are identical with, or similar to, those
                                                                            for which the trade mark is registered, a sign which
                         (Case C-422/98)                                    so closely corresponds to the mark as to create a
                                                                            likelihood of its being associated with that mark,
                          (1999/C 20/34)
                                                                       must Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 89/104/EEC (1) be
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 interpreted as meaning that the exclusive right enjoyed by
European Communities by judgment of the Sixth                          the proprietor entitles him to prevent the use of the sign
Chamber of the Tribunal de PremieÁre Instance de                       by that third party if the distinctive character of the mark
Bruxelles (Court of First Instance, Brussels) of                       is such that the possibility of such association giving rise
10 November 1998, received at the Court Registry on                    to confusion cannot be ruled out?
26 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Colonia Versicherung Aktiengesellschaft, Zweigniederlas-
sung München and 17 others v. Belgian State, Minister of               (1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1.
Finance, Customs and Excise Administration on the
following question:
Does not Paragraph 210 of the Ministerial Decree of
22 January 1948, by requiring an importer into Belgium
of manufactured tobacco products to which tax bands are                Action brought on 26 November 1998 by the Commission
affixed, where those products are not fit for consumption,             of the European Communities against the Hellenic
to destroy them in Belgium under the supervision of the                                            Republic
Belgian customs authorities and by not according
probative value to documents drawn up by the customs                                          (Case C-426/98)
authorities of another Member State as proof of such
                                                                                               (1999/C 20/36)
destruction constitute a measure having effects equivalent
to a quantitative restriction?'
                                                                       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities