CELEX: C2002/131/05
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-01 00:00:00
Title: Case C-60/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Eisenstadt by order of that Court of 17 January 2002 in the private prosecutions brought by Montres Rolex S.A. and Others

C 131/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.6.2002
3.    The Parliament’s application for the Court to order                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespa-
      Mr Panichelli to bear his own costs at first instance in Case        tentgericht by order of that Court of 22 January 2002
      T-130/98 is rejected.                                                in the administrative appeal brought by Heidelberger
                                                                                                   Bauchemie GmbH
(1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                                                                                                     (Case C-49/02)
                                                                                                    (2002/C 131/04)
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht
                                                                           (Federal Patents Court) (Germany) of 22 January 2002, received
                                                                           at the Court Registry on 20 February 2002, for a preliminary
                        (Fourth Chamber)                                   ruling in the administrative appeal brought by Heidelberger
                                                                           Bauchemie GmbH on the following questions:
                         of 14 March 2002
                                                                           For the purposes of registration as a trade mark, do colours or
in Joined Cases C-250/01 P and C-251/01 P: Mario Costac-                   combinations of colours claimed in the abstract, without
    urta v Commission of the European Communities (1)                      delineation and in hues which are indicated by a colour sample
                                                                           (colour specimen), named in words and identified under a
                                                                           recognised colour classification system fulfil the requirements
(Appeals — Application of Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff                for ability to constitute a trade mark laid down in Article 2 of
Regulations — Re-posting of the applicant to a non-Member                  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988
State — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Appeal                    to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
      manifestly unfounded and inadmissible — Costs)                       marks?
                          (2002/C 131/03)                                  In particular, for the purposes of Article 2 of the directive, is
                                                                           such an ‘(abstract) colour mark’
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           a)    a sign,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     b)    sufficiently distinctive to be capable of indicating origin,
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           c)    capable of being represented graphically?
In Joined Cases C-250/01 P and C-251/01 P: Mario Costacurta,               (1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1.
a former official of the Commission of the European Com-
munities, residing at Luxembourg, represented by M. Petit,
lawyer — two appeals against the orders of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities, Second Chamber, of
7 June 2001 in Case T-328/00 Costacurta v Commission, not
published in the European Court Reports, seeking to have
those orders set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall,                Eisenstadt by order of that Court of 17 January 2002 in
assisted by B. Wägenbaur) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),                    the private prosecutions brought by Montres Rolex S.A.
composed of S. von Bahr, President of Chamber,
                                                                                                       and Others
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges; D. Ruiz-
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made
an order on 14 March 2002, the operative part of which is as                                         (Case C-60/02)
follows:
                                                                                                    (2002/C 131/05)
1.    The appeals are dismissed.
2.    Mr Costacurta shall bear the costs.                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Landesgericht Eisen-
                                                                           stadt (Regional Court, Eisenstadt) of 17 January 2002, received
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
                                                                           at the Court Registry on 25 February 2002, for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the private prosecutions brought by Montres Rolex
                                                                           S.A. and Others, on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- 1.6.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 131/3
Is a provision of national law, in casu Paragraph 60(1) and (2)          Action brought on 13 March 2002 by the Commission of
of the Markenschutzgesetz (Austrian Law on the Protection of             the European Communities against the Federal Republic
Trademarks), in conjunction with Paragraph 10a thereof,                                            of Germany
which may be interpreted as meaning that the mere transit of
goods manufactured/distributed in contravention of provisions
of the law on trademarks is not punishable under criminal law,                                    (Case C-86/02)
contrary to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/
94 (1) of 22 December 1994 laying down measures to prohibit                                      (2002/C 131/07)
the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a
suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods, as
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 241/1999 (2) of
25 January 1999?
                                                                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
                                                                         nities on 13 March 2002 by the Commission of the European
(1) OJ L 341, p. 8.                                                      Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
(2) OJ L 27, p. 1.                                                       Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, C 254,
                                                                         Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) declare that, by adopting Paragraph 1(6) and Para-
                                                                               graph 1.44 of the SprengÄndG 1997 of 23 June 1998,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie
                                                                               the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
by judgment of that Court of 28 February 2002 in the
                                                                               obligations, imposed on it by the first paragraph of
case of Agence Maritime Lalemant against 1. Malzfabrik
                                                                               Article 10 and the third paragraph of Article 249 of the
Tivoli GmbH, 2. Malteurop G.I.E, 3. Belgische Interventie-
                                                                               EC Treaty, to comply with Directive 93/15/EEC (1) and
en Restitutiebureau and Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH against
                                                                               has failed to comply with its obligations arising from the
          Belgische Interventie- en Restitutiebureau
                                                                               first paragraph of Article 226 of the EC Treaty;
                          (Case C-82/02)                                 (2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                         (2002/C 131/06)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Cassatie                 The Commission objects to the provision whereby explosives,
(Belgian Court of Cassation) of 28 February 2002, received at            apart from those intended for export to, or introduction into,
the Court Registry on 12 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling            another Member State, may only be used or relinquished to
in the case of Agence Maritime Lalemant against 1. Malzfabrik            others if they bear an identification mark issued by the
Tivoli GmbH, 2. Malteurop G.I.E, 3. Belgische Interventie- en            Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM)
Restitutiebureau and Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH against Belgische            (Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing). The fact
Interventie- en Restitutiebureau on the following question:              that, as a result of provisional measures taken by the BAM,
                                                                         that obstacle to trade no longer exists is not enough to cure
                                                                         the infringement of Community law.
Must Article 9(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2730/
79 (1) of 29 November 1979 laying down common detailed
rules for the application of the system of export refunds on             The transitional provision contained in Paragraph 1.44 of the
agricultural products be interpreted as meaning that goods               German statute could lead to serious distortions of the internal
exported to non-member countries and in respect of which                 market, since explosives which may be freely placed on the
customs export formalities have been completed are to be                 market within the Community pursuant to the provisions of
regarded as having left the geographical territory of the                the directive are not permitted on the German market, whereas
Community when they actually leave the territory of the                  explosives which should no longer feature on the market after
Community or when they are placed in a customs warehouse?                the expiry of the transitional period might be allowed in
                                                                         Germany.
(1) OJ L 317, 1979, p. 1.                                                (1) OJ L 121 of 15.5.1993, p. 20.