CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 28 juin 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   381 28.6.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC. v. PORTUGAL   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today Wednesday 28 June 2006 at 9 a.m., in the case of Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal (application no. 73049/01).   The applicant   The case concerns an application brought by a company, Anheuser-Busch Inc., which is an American public limited company whose registered office is in St Louis (Missouri, United States). It produces beer and sells it under the brand name “Budweiser” in a number of countries around the world.   Summary of the facts   In 1981 the applicant company applied to the Portuguese National Institute for Industrial Property (INPI) to register “Budweiser” as a trade mark. The INPI did not grant the application immediately because “Budweiser Bier” had already been registered as a designation of origin on behalf of a Czechoslovak company, Budejovicky Budvar. In 1989 the applicant company sought a court order setting aside the registration of that designation, which was granted in 1995, and the INPI subsequently registered the “Budweiser” trade mark.   The Czech company challenged that decision in the Lisbon Court of First Instance, relying on the “1986 Agreement”, a bilateral treaty between Portugal and Czechoslovakia (now applicable in the Czech Republic) which came into force in 1987, protecting registered designations of origin. The Court of First Instance found against it, but the Court of Appeal overturned that decision and ordered the INPI to refuse to register “Budweiser” as a trade mark.   The applicant company appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal in 2001, holding that the designation of origin “Ceskebudejovicky Budvar”, which translated into German as “Budweis” or “Budweiss”, was protected by the 1986 Agreement. The registration of “Budweiser” as a trade mark on behalf of the applicant company was therefore set aside.   Complaint   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant company complained that the application of the 1986 Agreement, which had come into force after it had applied for registration of the “Budweiser” trade mark, had infringed its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions. It argued that, under existing international legal instruments, the right to protection of a trade mark was secured from the date on which the application to register it was made and that it had been deprived of that right without receiving any compensation, despite the fact that there had been no public-interest grounds to justify affording protection to a registered designation of origin on the basis of the treaty between Portugal and Czechoslovakia.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 July 2001 and declared admissible on 11 January 2005.   In its Chamber judgment of 11 October 2005 the Court held by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The case was referred to the Grand Chamber (under Article 43 [1] of the Convention and Rule 73 of the Rules of Court) on 15 February 2006 at the request of the applicant association.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Nicolas Bratza (British), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) [2] , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot) Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Rait Maruste (Estonian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), judges , Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Renate Jaeger (German), Nina Vajić (Croatian), substitute judges , and also Erik Fribergh , Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   João Manuel da Silva Miguel , Agent ,   António-Serge de Pinho Campinos , Adviser ;   Applicant :   Burkhart Goebel, Dietrich Ohlgart, Constanze Schulte , Counsel ,   João Pimenta, Frank Hellwig, Advisers.   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private.     ***   Press Contacts   Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer [2] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein.