Anda di halaman 1dari 2

C 197/2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 2.8.

2008

(Announcements)

COURT PROCEEDINGS

COURT OF JUSTICE

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes- 3. May the national provisions on the protection of geogra-
gerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2008 — phical designations be applied in the case where the indica-
Bayerischer Brauerbund e.V. v Bavaria N.V. tion ‘Bayerisches Bier’ fulfils the conditions for registration (3)
under Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 and Regulation (EC)
(Case C-120/08) No 510/2006, but Regulation (EC) No 1347/2001 is invalid?
(2008/C 197/02)
(1) OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12.
Language of the case: German (2) OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1.
(3) OJ 1992 L 182, p. 3.

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Applicant: Bayerischer Brauerbund e.V. Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on
23 April 2008 — H.J. Nijemeisland v Minister van
Defendant: Bavaria N.V. Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Questions referred
(Case C-170/08)
1. The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice
of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling on
(2008/C 197/03)
the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006
of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical
indications and designations of origin for agricultural Language of the case: Dutch
products and foodstuffs (1). Does Article 14(1) of Regulation
(EC) No 510/2006 apply in the case where the protected
indication has been validly registered in accordance with the
simplified procedure under Article 17 of Regulation (EEC)
No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geogra-
phical indications and designations of origin for agricultural
products and foodstuffs (2)? Referring court

2. (a) If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, what


date should be taken as the basis for determining the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
classification in time of the protected geographical indi-
cation within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Regulation
(EC) No 510/2006?
(b) If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, what Parties to the main proceedings
provision governs the conflict between a geographical
indication validly registered in accordance with the
simplified procedure under Article 17 of Regulation Applicant: H.J. Nijemeisland
(EEC) No 2081/92 and a trade mark, and what deter-
mines the classification in time of the protected geogra-
phical indication? Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
2.8.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/3

Question referred 2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative: does the


cessation of refugee status under Article 11(1)(e) of Directive
Must Article 3a of Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 (1), read in 2004/83 also require that, in the country of the refugee's
conjunction with Article 2(r) and (s) of Regulation (EC) nationality,
No 2419/2001 (2), be interpreted as preventing only the perpe-
tuation of a reduction or exclusion applied under Regulation (a) an actor of protection within the meaning of Article 7(1)
(EC) No 2419/2001, or is that provision also applicable to of Directive 2004/83 be present, and is it sufficient in
reductions or exclusions applied on the basis of other regula- that regard if protection can be assured only with the
tions? help of multinational troops,

(b) the refugee should not be threatened with serious harm,


1 within the meaning of Article 15 of Directive 2004/83,
( ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying
down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment which leads to the granting of subsidiary protection
scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 under Article 18 of that directive, and/or
establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the
common agricultural policy and establishing certain support (c) the security situation be stable and the general living
schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 41, p. 1).
2
( ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 conditions ensure a minimum standard of living?
laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration
and control system for certain Community aid schemes established 3. In a situation in which the previous circumstances, on the
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (OJ 2001 L 327, p. 11).
basis of which the person concerned was granted refugee
status, have ceased to exist, are new, different circumstances
founding persecution to be

(a) measured against the standard of probability applied for


recognising refugee status, or is another standard to be
applied in favour of the person concerned, and/or
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
(b) assessed having regard to the relaxation of the burden of
verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2008 —
proof under Article 4(4) of Directive 2004/83?
Aydin Salahadin Abdulla v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-175/08) (1) OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.

(2008/C 197/04)

Language of the case: German

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-


Referring court verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2008 —
Kamil Hasan v Federal Republic of Germany
Bundesverwaltungsgericht
(Case C-176/08)

Parties to the main proceedings (2008/C 197/05)

Applicant: Aydin Salahadin Abdulla Language of the case: German

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Referring court
Questions referred
Bundesverwaltungsgericht
1. Is Article 11(1)(e) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of
29 April 2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that — apart
from the second clause of Article 1(C)(5) of the Convention
of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva
Convention on Refugees) — refugee status ceases to exist if Parties to the main proceedings
the refugee's well-founded fear of persecution within the
terms of Article 2(c) of that directive, on the basis of which Applicant: Kamil Hasan
refugee status was granted, no longer exists and he also has
no other reason to fear persecution within the terms of
Article 2(c) of Directive 2004/83? Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany