CELEX: C2001/303/02
Language: en
Date: 2001-10-27 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 13 September 2001 in Case C-89/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Schieving-Nĳstad vof and Others v Robert Groeneveld (Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation — Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement — Interpretation — Direct effect — Application to proceedings pending at the time of entry into force in the State concerned — Conditions regarding the time-limit for bringing substantive proceedings — Calculation of that time-limit)

C 303/2                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        27.10.2001
3.     For the purposes of determining the five Judges who are           Sixth Chamber
to sit in each case assigned to a large Chamber, that is to say,
the Fifth and Sixth Chamber (to each of which seven Judges               (President: Judge Macken)
are attached), a list shall be drawn up for the judicial year. That      Mr Gulmann, Mr Puissochet, Mr da Cunha Rodrigues,
list shall comprise all the Judges of the Chamber, apart from            Mr Schintgen, Mr Skouris and Ms Colneric, Judges.
the President, in the following order:
(a)   the Judges of the small Chamber composed of four
      Judges, in order of seniority;                                     Appointment of the First Advocate General
(b) the Judges of the other small Chamber, in the same order.            In accordance with Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the
                                                                         Court of Justice appointed Advocate General S. Alber as First
                                                                         Advocate General for a period of one year starting on
For each case, the large Chamber shall be composed of:                   7 October 2001.
—     the President,
—     the Judge-Rapporteur,
                                                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
—     three Judges designated in the order set out in the relevant
      list; the starting point on that list shall be moved down
      one name at each general meeting.                                                        of 13 September 2001
                                                                         in Case C-89/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Replacement of a Judge or Judges prevented from attending                the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Schieving-Nijstad vof
shall be in the order set out in the list. However, should the                         and Others v Robert Groeneveld (1)
President of a large Chamber be prevented from sitting, he
shall be replaced preferably by the President of the small
Chamber.                                                                 (Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation —
                                                                         Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement — Interpretation —
                                                                         Direct effect — Application to proceedings pending at the
If the Court, or a Chamber, considers that a number of cases             time of entry into force in the State concerned — Conditions
should be heard and determined together (whether or not they             regarding the time-limit for bringing substantive proceed-
are formally joined), the composition of the bench shall be                           ings — Calculation of that time-limit)
that determined for the first of the cases discussed at a general
meeting.                                                                                           (2001/C 303/02)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
4.     For the period ending on 6 October 2002, the lists
referred to above are as follows:
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                            in the European Court Reports)
Third Chamber
(President: Judge Macken)                                                In Case C-89/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                         the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the the Hoge Raad
                                                                         der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) for a
Mr Gulmann, Mr Puissochet and Mr da Cunha Rodrigues,
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Judges
                                                                         court between Schieving-Nijstad vof and Others and Robert
                                                                         Groeneveld — on the interpretation of Article 50(6) of the
Fourth Chamber                                                           Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
                                                                         Rights, as set out in Annex 1 C to the Agreement establishing
(President: Judge von Bahr)                                              the World Trade Organisation, approved on behalf of the
                                                                         Community, as regards matters within its competence, by
Mr Edward, Mr La Pergola and Mr Timmermans, Judges                       Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 (OJ 1994
                                                                         L 336, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
                                                                         Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
Fifth Chamber                                                            and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward
                                                                         (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen,
(President: Judge Jann)                                                  F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and
                                                                         C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
Mr Edward, Mr La Pergola, Mr von Bahr, Mr Timmermans,                    L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Mr Sevón and Mr Wathelet, Judges                                        judgment on 13 September 2001, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 27.10.2001             EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 303/3
1.  Where the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual                  forbids the legal order of a Member State to provide, where
    Property Rights (‘the TRIPs Agreement’), as set out in Annex 1                appropriate, that its judicial authorities are to determine of their
    C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation,                 own motion the period within which substantive proceedings
    approved on behalf of the Community, as regards matters                       are to be instituted at the same time as ordering provisional
    within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of                       measures, without any request by the defendant being necessary
    22 December 1994, became applicable in the Member State                       for that purpose.
    concerned at a time when the court of first instance has heard
    the case but not yet delivered its decision, Article 50 of the TRIPs    6.    Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement neither requires nor
    Agreement is applicable to the extent that the infringement of                forbids the Member States to provide, where appropriate, that
    intellectual property rights continues beyond the date on which               its judicial authorities are to determine of their own motion the
    the TRIPs Agreement became applicable with regard to the                      period within which substantive proceedings are to be instituted.
    Community and the Member States.                                              Since the provision in question is silent on that point, the scope
                                                                                  of the powers conferred on appellate courts in that regard falls
                                                                                  within the competence of each Member State.
2.  The procedural requirements of Article 50 of the TRIPs
                                                                            (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
    Agreement, and in particular Article 50(6), are not such as to
    create rights upon which individuals may rely directly before the
    Community courts and the courts of the Member States.
    Nevertheless, where the judicial authorities are called upon to
    apply national rules with a view to ordering provisional
    measures for the protection of intellectual property rights falling
    within a field to which the TRIPs Agreement applies and in
    respect of which the Community has already legislated, they are
    required to do so as far as possible in the light of the wording                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    and purpose of Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement, taking
    account, more particularly, of all the circumstances of the case
    before them, so as to ensure that a balance is struck between the                                   (Fifth Chamber)
    competing rights and obligations of the intellectual property
    right holder and of the defendant.
                                                                                                   of 13 September 2001
                                                                            in Case C-374/99: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                                                                                                 European Communities (1)
3.  Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement is to be interpreted as
    meaning that a request by the defendant is necessary in order
    for the provisional measures ordered by way of interim relief to        (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year
    lapse on the ground that no substantive action has been brought         — Aid for consumption of olive oil — Premiums for sheep
    either within the period prescribed in the provisional measures                                        and goats)
    or, where no period is prescribed, within 20 working days or
    31 calendar days, whichever is the longer period.                                                   (2001/C 303/03)
                                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
4.  In the absence of any provision in the TRIPs Agreement                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
    concerning the point in time at which the period of 20 working                               in the European Court Reports)
    days or 31 calendar days prescribed by Article 50(6) of that
    agreement is to start, it is for each contracting party to
    determine when that period is to start, provided always that it         In Case C-374/99: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: M. López-Monı́s
    is ‘reasonable’ having regard to the circumstances of each case         Gallego) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
    and taking into account the balance to be struck between the            J. Guerra Fernández) — application for partial annulment of
    competing rights and obligations of the intellectual property           Commission Decision 1999/596/EC of 28 July 1999
    right holder and of the defendant.                                      amending Decision 1999/187/EC on the clearance of the
                                                                            accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the
                                                                            expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European
                                                                            Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1999
                                                                            L 226, p. 26) in so far as it relates to the Kingdom of Spain —
5.  In the absence of any Community rule on the point and in                the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
    accordance with Article 1(1) of the TRIPs Agreement, it is for          President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
    each Member State to determine the limits of the powers of the          (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
    judicial authorities in ordering provisional measures.                  General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 Sep-
    Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement neither requires nor               tember 2001, in which it: