Safeguarding the free movement of goods
22.4.2015
Question for written answer P-006439-15
to the Commission
Rule 130
Jussi Halla-aho (ECR)
In its judgment of 24 November 2005 in Case 361/2001, the Danish Supreme Court interpreted Article 5 of the Trade Marks Directive as meaning that a four-stripe decoration was not confusingly similar to Adidas’s three-striped trade mark. In Finland, Helsinki Court of Appeal has delivered a ruling in which it reached precisely the opposite conclusion. By Decision No 2435 of 22 November 2012, Finland’s Supreme Court refused leave to appeal after an application had been lodged for the Supreme Court to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union. Consequently, the Trade Marks Directive is being interpreted in contrary ways in the Member States. In practice, this constitutes a practical obstacle to the free movement of goods. If national supreme courts do not comply with their duty to seek preliminary rulings, issues of interpretation of European law remain unresolved. In the case at issue, concerning interpretation of the Trade Marks Directive, neglect of the duty to seek a preliminary ruling has thrown up a practical obstacle to the free movement of goods.
How will the Commission safeguard the free movement of goods in a situation in which a national court has neglected its duty to seek a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU?