CELEX: C2002/219/09
Language: en
Date: 2002-09-14 00:00:00
Title: Cases C-250/02, C-251/02, C-252/02, C-253/02 and C-256/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by judgment of that Court of 23 January 2002 in the cases of Telecom Italia Mobile (C-250/02), BLU SpA, intervener: Albacom (C-251/02), Telecom Italia SpA, intervener: Telemar (C-252/02), Omnitel Pronto Italia SpA (C-253/02), and WIND Telecomunicazioni SpA (C-256/02) against Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Econimica (now Ministero dell' Economia e delle Finanze) and Ministero delle Comunicazioni

C 219/6               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.9.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                          legislation, subjecting undertakings active on the Italian
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by judgment of                         market to conditions more oppressive than those pro-
that Court of 23 January 2002 in the cases of Telecom                        vided for by those provisions of Community law in the
Italia Mobile (C-250/02), BLU SpA, intervener: Albacom                       other States of the Union?
(C-251/02), Telecom Italia SpA, intervener: Telemar
(C-252/02), Omnitel Pronto Italia SpA (C-253/02), and
WIND Telecomunicazioni SpA (C-256/02) against Mini-                    (1 ) OJ L 117 of 7.5.1997, p. 15.
stero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione
Econimica (now Ministero dell’ Economia e delle Finanze)
              and Ministero delle Comunicazioni
(Cases C-250/02, C-251/02, C-252/02, C-253/02 and C-256/
                               02)
                        (2002/C 219/09)                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
                                                                       Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order
                                                                       of that court dated 17 June 2002, in the case of La Mer
                                                                            Technology Inc. against Laboratoires Goemar S.A.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-                                      (Case C-259/02)
tivo Regionale per il Lazio (Regional Administrative Court for
Lazio) of 23 January 2002, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                                                (2002/C 219/10)
10 July 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Telecom
Italia Mobile (C-250/02), BLU SpA, intervener: Albacom
(C-251/02), Telecom Italia SpA, intervener: Telemar (C-252/
02), Omnitel Pronto Italia SpA (C-253/02), and WIND Teleco-
municazioni SpA (C-256/02) against Ministero del Tesoro, del
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Bilancio e della Programmazione Econimica (now Ministero
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the High Court of
dell’ Economia e delle Finanze) and Ministero delle Comunica-
                                                                       Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 17 June
zioni (Ministry of the Treasury, Budget and Economic Planning
                                                                       2002, which was received at the Court Registry on 15 July
(now Ministry of Economy and Finance) and Ministry of
                                                                       2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of La Mer Technology
Communications) on the following questions:
                                                                       Inc. and Laboratoires Goemar S.A. on the following questions:
1)    Do Articles 6 and 11 of Directive 97/13/EC (1) of the            1.    What factors should be taken into account when deciding
      European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997                whether a mark has been ‘put to genuine use’ in a Member
      on a common framework for general authorizations and                   State within the meaning of Articles 10(1) and 12(1) of
      individual licences in the field of telecommunications                 the First Council Directive 89/104 ( 1) of 21 December
      services permit Member States to require only those                    1988?
      undertakings which hold a licence or authorisation to
      carry on telecommunications activities to make financial
      payments, whatever they may be called, other than and            In particular:
      in addition to those provided for by that Directive, and
      are such payments in keeping with the principle of non-
      discrimination?                                                  2.    Should the extent of use of the mark in relation to the
                                                                             goods or services for which the mark is registered in the
                                                                             Member State be taken into account?
2)    Do Articles 6 and 11 of Directive 97/13/EC permit
      Member States to introduce direct or indirect taxes or
      other charges of a fiscal nature on activities consisting        3.    Is any amount of use however small, sufficient if it was
      of installing and supplying public telecommunications                  made with no purpose other than commercially dealing
      networks, the supply to the public of voice telephony                  in the goods or providing the service concerned?
      services and mobile and personal communication ser-
      vices, determined in variable percentage terms and having        4.    If the answer to the foregoing question is ‘no’ what is the
      equivalent effect to those prohibited by the Community                 test for determining how much use is sufficient, and in
      legislation?                                                           particular does that test include a consideration of nature
                                                                             and size of the business of the registered proprietor?
3)    May Articles 2, 3 and 95 of the Treaty and Article 12 of
      Directive 97/13/EC be interpreted to mean that it is not         5.    Is token or sham use to be disregarded, and in particular
      permissible for the Member States to introduce financial               is use whose sole or predominant purpose is defeating a
      charges contrary to the provisions of the harmonising                  potential claim for revocation to be disregarded?