CELEX: C2000/302/04
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-21 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 June 2000 in Case C-332/98: French Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Aid for the Coopérative d'Exportation du Livre Français (CELF))

C 302/2                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           21.10.2000
No 1/80, of 19 September 1980, on the development of the                     before that court against Giancarlo Fornasar, Andrea Strizzolo,
Association, adopted by the Association Council established by               Giancarlo Toso, Lucio Mucchino, Enzo Peressutti and Sante
the Association Agreement between the European Economic                      Chiarcosso, — on the interpretation of Article 1(4) of Council
Community and Turkey — the Court (Sixth Chamber), compo-                     Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1994, on hazardous
sed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the Second                   waste (CJ 1991 L 377 p. 20) and Council Decision 94/904/EC
Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kap-               of 22 December 1994 establishing a list of hazardous waste
teyn, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and V. Skouris, Judges; A. La                  pursuant to Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689 (OJ 1994 L 356,
Pergola, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,               p. 14) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schint-
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 June 2000, in                  gen, President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President
which it has ruled:                                                          of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm
                                                                             (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: G. Cosmos; Registrar:
The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1180, of 19 Sep-             L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given a judgment on 22 June
tember 1980, on the development of the Association, adopted by the           2000, in which it has ruled:
Association Council established by the Association Agreement
between the European Economic Community and Turkey must be                   1.    Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on
interpreted as covering the situation of a Turkish national who, like              hazardous waste does not prevent the Member States, including,
the applicant in the main proceedings, was authorised in her capacity              for matters within their jurisdiction, the courts, from classifying
as the spouse of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the              as hazardous waste other than that featuring on the list of
labour force of the host Member State to join that worker there, in                hazardous waste laid down by Council Decision 94/904/EC of
circumstances where that spouse, having divorced before the expiry of              22 December 1994 establishing a list of hazardous waste
the three-year qualification period laid down in the first indent of               pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689, and
that provision, still continued in fact to live uninterruptedly with her           thus from adopting more stringent protective measures in order
former spouse until the date on which the two former spouses                       to prohibit the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal
remarried. Such a Turkish national must therefore be regarded as                   of such waste. If they do so, it is for the authorities of the
legally resident in that Member State within the meaning of that                   Member State concerned which have competence under national
provision, so that she may rely directly on her right, after three years,          law to notify the Commission of such cases in accordance with
to respond to any offer of employment, and, after five years, to enjoy             the second indent of Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689.
free access to any paid employment of her choice.
                                                                             2.    Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689 and Decision 94/904 must
                                                                                   be interpreted as meaning that it is not a necessary precondition
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.                                                          for waste to be classified, in a specific case, as hazardous, that
                                                                                   its origin be determined.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                            of 22 June 2000                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-318/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                               (Fifth Chamber)
the Pretura Circondariale di Udine, Sezione Distaccata di
Cividale del Friuli, Italy): Criminal proceedings v Giancar-                                            of 22 June 2000
                      lo Fornasar and Others (1)
                                                                             in Case C-332/98: French Republic v Commission of the
(Waste — Definition of hazardous waste — Directive                                               European Communities (1)
91/689/EEC — Decision 94/904/EC — More stringent
                        measures of protection)
                                                                             (Aid for the Coopérative d’Exportation du Livre Français
                                                                                                             (CELF))
                            (2000/C 302/03)
                                                                                                        (2000/C 302/04)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                                  (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-318/98: reference to the Court under Article 177                                       in the European Court Reports)
of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretura
Circondariale di Udine, Sezione Distaccata di Cividale del                   In Case C-332/98: French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger
Friuli, Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings          and F. Million) v Commission of the European Communities
 ---pagebreak--- 21.10.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 302/3
(Agent: G. Rozet) — application for the annulment of Com-                  Article 5(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of
mission Decision 1999/133/EC of 10 June 1998 concerning                    21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
State aid in favour of Coopérative d’Exportation du Livre                  relating to trade marks cannot be interpreted as meaning that where
Français (CELF) (OJ 1999 L 44, p. 37) — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the                     —     a trade mark has a particularly distinctive character, either per
Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann and                     se or because of the reputation it enjoys with the public, and
H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 22 June 2000, in which it:                   —     a third party, without the consent of the proprietor of the mark,
                                                                                 uses, in the course of trade in goods or services which are
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                      identical with, or similar to, those for which the trade mark is
                                                                                 registered, a sign which so closely corresponds to the mark as to
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                               give rise to the possibility of its being associated with that mark,
                                                                           the exclusive right enjoyed by the proprietor entitles him to prevent
(1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.                                                the use of the sign by that third party if the distinctive character of
                                                                           the mark is such that the possibility of such association giving rise to
                                                                           confusion cannot be ruled out.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 22 June 2000
in Case C-425/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Marca Mode CV v
               Adidas AG, Adidas Benelux BV (1)
                                                                                                       of 27 June 2000
(Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(1)(b) — Trade marks
— Likelihood of confusion — Likelihood of association                      in Case C-404/97: Commission of the European Communi-
             between the sign and the trade mark)                                             ties v Portuguese Republic (1)
                          (2000/C 302/05)
                                                                           (Failure to fulfil obligations — State aid incompatible with
                                                                            the common market — Recovery — Absolute impossibility)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                                       (2000/C 302/06)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In Case C-425/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) for a                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                       in the European Court Reports)
court between Marca Mode CV and Adidas AG, Adidas Benelux
BV — on the interpretation of Article 5(1)(b) of First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate                    In Case C-404/97: Commission of the European Communities
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ                  (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and A.M. Alves Vieira) v Portuguese
1989 L 40, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                     Republic (Agents: J. Mota de Campos, L. Fernandes and
of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber,                    M.L. Duarte) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and                   cancel and recover, within the prescribed period, the aid from
F. Macken, Judges; F. G. Jacobs; Advocate General; H. von                  which EPAC — Empresa para a Agroalimentação e Cereais, SA
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                 unduly benefited, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil
judgment on 22 June 2000, in which it has ruled:                           its obligations under Commission Decision 97/762/EC of