CELEX: C2002/323/28
Language: en
Date: 2002-12-21 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 November 2002 in Case C-184/01 P: Peter Hirschfeldt (Appeal — Officials — Internal competition — Cancellation — Transfer — Promotion — Article 8 of the Staff Regulations)

21.12.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 323/21
2.    Article 6(3) of Directive 76/768 as amended by Directive 93/          Customs Code, read in conjunction with Council Regulation (EEC)
      35 precludes national legislation which authorises the use of         No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
      information as referred to in Question 1 only on condition that       Customs Code, should be interpreted as meaning that a customs debt
      prior authorisation is granted by the competent Minister.             arising by reason of an offence or irregularity committed in connection
                                                                            with a consignment placed under the external Community transit
                                                                            procedure can be recovered from the principal by the office of departure
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                                 even if it did not notify the principal before the end of the 11th
                                                                            month following the date of registration of the Community transit
                                                                            declaration that the consignment had not been presented at the office
                                                                            of destination and that the place of the offence or irregularity could
                                                                            not be established. The same applies if the office of departure did not
                                                                            follow an administrative procedure for the transmission of infor-
                                                                            mation, such as the early warning system, or if the failure to comply
                                                                            with the time-limit was due to error or negligence on the part of that
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      office.
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                      of 14 November 2002
in Case C-112/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Vestre Landsret): SPKR 4 nr. 3482 ApS v
Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattestyrelsen, Aktieselskab-
et af 11/9 1996, Arden Transport & Spedition ved Søren
           Lauritsen og Lene Lauritsen I/S (ATS) ( 1)
                                                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Regulations (EEC) Nos 2913/92 and 2454/93 — External
Community transit — Offence or irregularity — Recovery                                               (Fourth Chamber)
                of a customs debt — Conditions)
                          (2002/C 323/27)                                                          of 7 November 2002
                   (Language of the case: Danish)                                       in Case C-184/01 P: Peter Hirschfeldt (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      (Appeal — Officials — Internal competition — Cancellation
                   in the European Court Reports)                           — Transfer — Promotion — Article 8 of the Staff Regu-
                                                                                                            lations)
In Case C-112/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                            (2002/C 323/28)
EC by the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between SPKR 4
nr. 3482 ApS and Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattestyrelsen,                                   (Language of the case: French)
Aktieselskabet af 11/9 1996, Arden Transport & Spedition
ved Søren Lauritsen og Lene Lauritsen I/S (ATS), on the
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code                                        in the European Court Reports)
(OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), and Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ
1993 L 253, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                            In Case C-184/01 P, Peter Hirschfeldt (Agents: J.-N. Louis and
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,
V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),                V. Peere): Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of
                                                                            13 February 2001 in Case T-166/00 Hirschfeldt v EEA [2001]
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 November 2002, in
which it has ruled:                                                         ECR-SC I-A-41 and II-157, seeking to have that judgment set
                                                                            aside and the claims at first instance allowed, the other party
                                                                            to the proceedings being: European Environment Agency,
Article 379(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of                 represented by J.-L. Salazar and J. Rivière, acting as Agents,
2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of                assisted by D. Waelbroeck, avocat, with an address for service
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community              in Luxembourg, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
 ---pagebreak--- C 323/22                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21.12.2002
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                   party uses in the course of trade a sign which is identical to a validly
D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                registered trade mark on goods which are identical to those for which
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 Novem-              it is registered, the trade mark proprietor of the mark is entitled, in
ber 2002, in which it:                                                      circumstances such as those in the present case, to rely on Article
                                                                            5(1)(a) of that directive to prevent that use. It is immaterial that, in
                                                                            the context of that use, the sign is perceived as a badge of support for
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                 or loyalty or affiliation to the trade mark proprietor.
2.    Orders Mr Hirschfeldt to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
( 1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
                                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                      (Second Chamber)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                     of 7 November 2002
                      of 12 November 2002
                                                                            In Joined Cases C-228/01 and C-289/01 (Reference for a
in Case C-206/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                   preliminary ruling from the tribunal de grande instance
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery                         de Dax): Jacques Bourrasse and Jean-Marie Perchicot ( 1)
   Division): Arsenal Football Club plc v Matthew Reed (1)
                                                                            (Transport— Directive 84/647/EEC — Use of vehicles hired
(Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/                        without drivers for the carriage of goods by road —
104/EEC — Article 5(1)(a) — Scope of the proprietor’s                       Registration of hired vehicles — Hired vehicles operating
                exclusive right to the trade mark)                          under Community authorisation — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No 881/92 — Management of tachograph discs of hired
                                                                                        vehicles — Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85)
                          (2002/C 323/29)
                                                                                                        (2002/C 323/30)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-206/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                                                 in the European Court Reports)
EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales,
Chancery Division, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Arsenal Football Club plc
and Matthew Reed, on the interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) of
the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988                  In Joined Cases C-228/01 and C-289/01: Reference to the
to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade              Court under Article 234 EC by the Cour d’appel de Pau (C-228/
marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), the Court, composed of:                         01) and the Tribunal de grande instance de Dax (C-289/01)
G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,          (France) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers),                    pending before those courts against Jacques Bourrasse (C-228/
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,                  01) and Jean-Marie Perchicot (C-289/01) Third parties: Union
N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                régionale syndicale des petits et moyens transporteurs du Sud-
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the              Ouest (Unostra Aquitaine) (C-228/01), Fédération générale des
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 November 2002, in                     transports et de l’équipement CFDT (FGTE-CFDT) (C-289/01)
which it has ruled:                                                         and Inspection du travail des transports (C-228/01 and C-289/
                                                                            01), and on the interpretation of Article 2 of Council Directive
                                                                            84/647/EEC of 19 December 1984 on the use of vehicles
In a situation which is not covered by Article 6(1) of the First Council    hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road (OJ
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the                 1984 L 335, p. 72), as amended by Council Directive 90/398/
laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, where a third            EEC of 24 July 1990 (OJ 1990 L 202, p. 46), the Court (Second