CELEX: C2003/070/05
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-467/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart by order of that Court of 19 December 2002 in the administrative-law proceedings between Inan Cetinkaya and Land Baden-Württemberg

C 70/2                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.3.2003
(Federal Social Court) of 30 October 2002, received at the             2.    Is the installer of the machine permitted to rely on the
Court Registry on 13 December 2002, for a preliminary                        exemption laid down in Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/
ruling in the case of Karin Bautz against AOK (Allgemeine                    388/EEC?
Ortskrankenkasse — General Local Health Insurance Fund)
Baden-Württemberg on the following questions:
                                                                       (1 ) OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1.
1.   Is it compatible with the provisions of Articles 49 and 50
     EC for a Member State which has organised its sickness
     insurance system in accordance with the principle of
     benefits in kind, and which provides outpatient medical
     care through authorised medical practitioners, to permit
     the reimbursement of the cost of consulting unauthorised          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
     medical practitioners — also where treatment is provided          gericht Stuttgart by order of that Court of 19 December
     in another Member State — only if treatment correspond-           2002 in the administrative-law proceedings between Inan
     ing to the generally accepted state of medical knowledge                     Cetinkaya and Land Baden-Württemberg
     is not available under the system of benefits in kind?
                                                                                                (Case C-467/02)
2.   If this is deemed to be an inadmissible impediment to the
     freedom to provide services, do the aforementioned                                          (2003/C 70/05)
     provisions of the EC Treaty permit German law to make
     the reimbursement of the cost of privately obtained
     medical services conditional — except in emergencies —
     on a prior application being made for a decision by the           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     sickness insurance fund as to entitlement to extra-               European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
     contractual treatment?                                            Stuttgart (Administrative Court) of 19 December 2002,
                                                                       received at the Court Registry on 27 December 2002, for
                                                                       a preliminary ruling in the administrative-law proceedings
                                                                       between Inan Cetinkaya and Land Baden-Württemberg on the
                                                                       following questions:
                                                                       1.    Does a child born in Germany to a Turkish worker who
                                                                             belongs to the regular labour force fall within the scope
                                                                             of Article 7(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey
                                                                             Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                      development of the Association (‘Decision No 1/80’)
hof by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the                         where from his birth to at least the time he attained the
  case of Finanzamt Herne-West against Savvas Akritidis                      age of majority his residence was permitted initially solely
                                                                             for the reason of family unity or, where his residence
                                                                             permit was temporary, was not terminated solely for that
                        (Case C-462/02)                                      reason?
                                                                       2.    Is Article 14 of Decision No 1/80 the only basis upon
                         (2003/C 70/04)                                      which the right of a family member to access to the
                                                                             employment market and to an extension of residence
                                                                             under the second indent of Article 7(1) may be limited?
                                                                       3.    Does the imposition of three years’ juvenile sentence
                                                                             constitute the definitive removal of the person concerned
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             from the labour force such that he loses his rights under
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                             the second indent of Article 7(1) even if there is a real
(Federal Finance Court) of 6 November 2002, received at the
                                                                             possibility that only part of the sentence will require to
Court Registry on 23 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             be served, albeit that if released early on licence the
in the case of Finanzamt Herne-West against Savvas Akritidis
                                                                             person will be required to submit to treatment for drug
on the following questions:
                                                                             abuse and during the period of that treatment will not be
                                                                             available for employment on the market?
1.   Does Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/388/EEC ( 1) prohibit
     a Member State from making the organisation of a card             4.    Where it results from a short period of imprisonment
     game subject to value added tax solely if the organisation              which is not suspended for probation, does the loss of a
     of a card game by a licensed public casino is exempt, or                job or, where the person concerned is unemployed, the
     must card games organised outside casinos also be                       impossibility of applying for a job constitute voluntary
     comparable for that purpose in essential respects, for                  unemployment within the meaning of the second sen-
     example as regards the game rules, the maximum stake                    tence of Article 6(2) of Decision No 1/80 and therefore
     and the maximum winnings, with card games in the                        not prevent the loss of the rights conferred by Article 6(1)
     casinos?                                                                and Article 7(1) of Decision No 1/80?
 ---pagebreak--- 22.3.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 70/3
5.   Does this apply also where it may be assumed that the              Pleas in law and main arguments
     person will be released after an insignificant, reasonable
     time, but must then submit to treatment for drug abuse             —     Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/
     and will not be able to take up employment until he has                  94; the trade mark applied for, ‘MATRATZEN markt
     completed additional school education?                                   CONCORD’, which consists of three words and a figurat-
                                                                              ive element, and the opposing earlier trade mark, ‘Matrat-
6.   Is Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 to be interpreted as                zen’, are not similar, but completely different. The Court
     meaning that the court requires to take into account a                   of First Instance did not base its assessment on the overall
     change in circumstances which occurs after the most                      impression created by the marks and thus failed to have
     recent administrative decision and which is favourable to                regard to the principles established in the judgment of
     the person concerned such that it would preclude the                     the Court of Justice in Case C-251/95 (SABEL). The
     application of any of the limitations in Article 14 of                   finding that the word ‘MATRATZEN’ alone is the domi-
     Decision No 1/80?                                                        nant feature of the trade mark applied for is contrary to
                                                                              the rules of logic and to experience.
                                                                        —     Breach of the principle of the free movement of goods
                                                                              (Articles 28 and 30 EC); the opposition based on the
                                                                              earlier mark is an abuse of a formal legal position. This
                                                                              was not sufficiently assessed by the Court of First Instance.
Appeal brought on 7 January 2003 by Matratzen Concord
GmbH, formerly Matratzen Concord AG, against the
judgment delivered on 23 October 2002 by the Fourth                     (1 ) OJ 2003 C 19.
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-6/01 between Matratzen Concord
GmbH, formerly Matratzen Concord AG, and the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                         and Designs)
                        (Case C-3/03 P)
                                                                        Appeal brought on 13 January 2003 by the Commission
                        (2003/C 70/06)                                  of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-
                                                                        ered on 25 October 2002 by the First Chamber of the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                        case T-5/02 between Tetra Laval BV and the Commission
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 October 2002                              of the European Communities
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-6/01 between Matratzen
Concord GmbH, formerly Matratzen Concord AG, and the                                             (Case C-12/03 P)
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 7 January 2003 by Matratzen                                               (2003/C 70/07)
Concord GmbH, represented by Dr Wolf-W. Wodrich,
Rechtsanwalt, Huyssenallee 58-64, D-45128 Essen, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, assisted by Patentanwälte
Zenz, Helber, Hosbach & Partner, Huyssenallee 58-64, D-                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 25 October 2002
45128 Essen.                                                            by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in case T-5/02 (1) between Tetra Laval
                                                                        BV and the Commission of the European Communities,
The appellant claims that the Court should:                             was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 13 January 2003 by the Commission of the
—    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of           European Communities, represented by Michel Petite, Anthony
     the European Communities of 23 October 2002 in Case                Whelan and Per Hellström, acting as agents, with an address
     T-6/01 ( 1),                                                       for service in Luxembourg.
—    reject the opposition of the other party to the proceedings
     before the Board of Appeal of 21 April 1998 (OHIM ref.:
                                                                        The Appellant claims that the Court should:
     B 32 500),
—    order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings                  —     annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
     before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the                       25 October 2002 in case T-5/02, Tetra Laval BV v
     proceedings before the Opposition Division and before                    Commission;
     the Board of Appeal of OHIM, as well as the costs of the
     proceedings on the action and on this appeal.                      —     order Tetra Laval BV to pay the Commission’s costs.