CELEX: C2000/149/32
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-27 00:00:00
Title: Case C-67/00: Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

27.5.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 149/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — Therefore, is an undertaking whose registered office is in a
                                                                            Member State at whose request a protected designation of
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                 origin has been registered in accordance with Article 17 of
C-42/00 (2); the period prescribed for adoption laid down in                Regulation No 2081/92 (24 July 1993), which has used a
Article 5 of the Directive expired on 31 December 1998.                     designation that is open to confusion with the one
                                                                            registered uninterruptedly over the five years prior to the
                                                                            entry into force of Regulation No 2081/92 entitled to use
(1) OJ 1997 L 184, 12.7.1997, p. 33.                                        the same designation to distinguish products which are
(2) See page 18 of this OJ.                                                 intended to be sold only outside the Member State of
                                                                            registration and only in the territory of a Member State
                                                                            which has not opposed the use of that designation in the
                                                                            said territory?
                                                                        — If Question 5 is answered in the affirmative, may the
                                                                            undertaking whose registered office is in the Member State
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                      of registration of the protected designation of origin (PDO)
Parma — Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari                     legitimately describe his products by using the designation
— by order of that court of 21 February 2000 in the case                    which is open to confusion with the one registered until
          of criminal proceedings against Dante Bigi                        the expiry of the fifth year following the date of registration
                                                                            of the protected designation (12 June 1996), in other
                                                                            words until 12 June 2001?
                          (Case C-66/00)
                                                                        — As from the day following the date indicated in Question
                         (2000/C 149/31)                                    6 above (12 June 2001), must the use of any designation
                                                                            open to confusion with the one registered in all the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Member States by any operator who is not expressly
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di Parma                  authorised to use the registered designation within the
— Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari (District                 meaning of Regulation No 2081/92 be regarded as pro-
Court, Parma, Office of the Judge responsible for preliminary               hibited?
investigations) of 21 February 2000, which was received at the
Court Registry on 28 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling            (1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.92, p. 1.
in criminal proceedings against Dante Bigi, on the following            (2) OJ L 83 of 25.3.97, p. 3.
questions:                                                              (3) OJ L 148 of 21.6.96, p. 1.
— Must Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2081/92 (1) (as
     amended by Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 535/97) (2) be
     interpreted as meaning that no official measure of a
     legislative or administrative nature need be adopted by the
     Member State concerned in order to allow the use on its
     territory of designations which may be confused with               Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Commission
     those registered under Article 17 of Regulation (EC)                      of the European Communities against Ireland
     No 2081/92?
                                                                                                  (Case C-67/00)
— Therefore, in order to allow use of the designations referred
     to above in the territory of the Member State concerned, is                                 (2000/C 149/32)
     it sufficient that there is no opposition by that Member
     State to such use?                                                 An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities on 29 February 2000 by
— Does the lack of any opposition by the Member State in                the Commission of the European Communities, represented
     whose territory the designation which is open to confusion         by Mr Michael Shotter, a member of its Legal Service, acting as
     with one registered under Article 17 of Regulation (EC)            agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
     No 2081/92 is used render lawful the use of that desig-            Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, at the
     nation by an undertaking whose registered office is in the         Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
     territory of the Member State in which the designation was
     registered, if that undertaking uses the designation which         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
     is open to confusion only for products intended to be sold
     outside the country of registration and only within the            — declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     territory of the Member State which is not opposed to use              or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     of the said designation?                                               Commission Directive 98/28/EC (1) of 29 April 1998
                                                                            granting a derogation from certain provisions of Directive
— Does the period of five years referred to in Article 13(2) of             93/43/EEC (2)) on the hygiene of foodstuffs as regards the
     Regulation No 2081/92 for use of a name in relation to a               transport by sea of bulk raw sugar or, in any event, by
     product whose designation was registered on 12 June                    failing to inform the Commission of those measures,
     1996 (see Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (3), cited above)                 Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
     expire on 12 June 2001?                                                Directive; and,
 ---pagebreak--- C 149/20                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   27.5.2000
— order Ireland to pay the costs.                                        1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
                                                                         to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
                                                                         the Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         (1) OJ L 333, 04.12.1997, p. 1.
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which             (2) Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 (OJ L 262,
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,                27.09.76, p. 201).
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 1 August
1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
to comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
the Commission.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
( 1) OJ L 140, 12.05.1998, p. 10.                                        richtshof by order of that court of 17 February 2000 in
(2) Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the hygiene of        the case of DEVELOP Baudurchführungs- und Stadt-
     foodstuffs (OJ L 175, 19.07.1993, p. 1.                             entwicklungs GmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für
                                                                                   Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland
                                                                                                  (Case C-71/00)
                                                                                                 (2000/C 149/34)
Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Commission                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         of the European Communities against Ireland                     European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
                                                                         hof (Higher Administrative Court) of 17 February 2000,
                            (Case C-69/00)                               received at the Court Registry on 2 March 2000, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of DEVELOP Baudurchführungs-
                                                                         und Stadtentwicklungs GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für
                           (2000/C 149/33)                               Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland on the following
                                                                         question:
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 29 February 2000 by               Do payments which an acquirer of dividend rights in a capital
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                  company makes not on its own behalf but on behalf of its
by Mr Michael Shotter, a member of its Legal Service, acting as          parent company constitute a ‘contribution of assets of any
agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos            kind’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(d) of Council Directive
Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, at the                 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                    the raising of capital?
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                              (1) OJ 1969 L 249, p. 25.
— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 97/56/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 20 October 1997 amending for the 16th
      time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the
      laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
      Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and        Appeal brought on 2 March 2000 by Acciaierie di Bolzano
      use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (2) or,       SpA against the judgment delivered on 16 December
      in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of those         1999 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of
      measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under       the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      that Directive; and                                                in Case T-158/96 between Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and
                                                                                  Commission of the European Communities
— order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                                                 (Case C-75/00 P)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  (2000/C 149/35)
Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 December
a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,            1999 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation             Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
on the Member States to observe the period for compliance                T-158/96 between Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and Commission
laid down in the directive. That period expired on 4 December            of the European Communities (Italian Republic and Falck SpA,