# Official Journal C 217/3 Se

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 217 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 483 September 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 217

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 483 September 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Court of Justice |
| | COURT OF JUSTICE |
| 2005/C 217/1 | Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-26/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (Association arrangements for the overseas countries and territories — Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — Regulation (EC) No 2423/1999 — Action for annulment — Safeguard measures — Proportionality) | 1 |
| 2005/C 217/2 | Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-180/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (Association arrangements for the overseas countries and territories — Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 — Action for annulment — Safeguard measures — Proportionality) | 1 |
| 2005/C 217/3 | Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-452/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (Association arrangements for the overseas countries and territories — Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 — Action for annulment — Safeguard measures — Proportionality) | 2 |
| 2005/C 217/4 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-57/02 P: Compañía española para la fabricación de aceros inoxidables SA (Acerinox) v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — ECSC Treaty — Agreement, decisions and concerted practices — Alloy surcharge — Parallel conduct — Reduction of the fine — Cooperation in the administrative procedure — Rights of the defence) | 2 |
| 2005/C 217/5 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Joined Cases C-65/02 P and C-73/02 P: ThyssenKrupp Stainless GmbH and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — ECSC Treaty — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Alloy surcharge — Reduction of the fine — Cooperation in the administrative procedure — Attributability of the infringement — Rights of the defence) | 3 |
| 2005/C 217/6 | Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 July 2005 in Case C-304/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Fisheries — Control obligations placed on the Member States — Judgment of the Court establishing a breach of obligations — Non-compliance — Article 228 EC — Payment of a lump sum — Imposition of a penalty payment) | 3 |
| 2005/C 217/7 | Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 June 2005 in Case C-378/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad in Waterschap Zeeuws Vlaanderen v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (VAT — Capital goods acquired by a body governed by public law — Public authority — Transaction engaged in as taxable person and transaction engaged in as non-taxable person — Right to adjustment and deduction) | 4 |
| 2005/C 217/8 | Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-418/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht in Praktiker Bau- und Heimwerkermärkte AG (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Trade marks in respect of services — Registration — Services provided in connection with retail trade — Specification of content of services — Similarity between the services in question and goods or other services) | 4 |
| 2005/C 217/9 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-135/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Community rules on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs — National legislation authorising the use of the term bio in respect of products which have not been organically produced) | 5 |
| 2005/C 217/0 | Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-147/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 12 EC, 149 EC and 150 EC — Conditions of access to university education — Discrimination) | 5 |
| 2005/C 217/1 | Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-149/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — System of fishing quotas — 1991 to 1996 fishing years) | 6 |
| 2005/C 217/2 | Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 July 2005 in Case C-198/03 P: Commission of the European Communities v CEVA Santé Animale SA, Pfizer Enterprises Sàrl, International Federation for Animal Health (IFAH) (Appeal — Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 — Veterinary medicinal products — Establishment of a maximum residue level for progesterone — Conditions governing the non-contractual liability of the Community) | 6 |
| 2005/C 217/3 | Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-208/03 P: Jean-Marie Le Pen v European Parliament (Appeal — Elections of Members of the European Parliament — Lack of uniform electoral procedure — Application of national law — Disqualification of a Member of the European Parliament from holding office following a criminal conviction — Measure by which the European Parliament takes note of that disqualification — Action for annulment — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility) | 7 |
| 2005/C 217/4 | Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-231/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia: Consorzio Aziende Metano (Coname) v Comune di Cingia de' Botti (Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 81 EC — Concession for the management of a public gas-distribution service) | 7 |
| 2005/C 217/5 | Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Joined Cases C-259/03, C-260/03 and C-343/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark (System of fishing quotas — 1988, 1990 to 1992, 1994 and 1995 to 1997 fishing years) | 8 |
| 2005/C 217/6 | Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-349/03: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 77/799/EEC — Mutual assistance by the competent authorities — Fields of VAT and excise duties — Partial transposition — Territory of Gibraltar) | 9 |
| 2005/C 217/7 | Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-364/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 84/360/EEC — Atmospheric pollution — Industrial plant — Electricity power station) | 9 |
| 2005/C 217/8 | Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-370/03: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Financial treatment to be applied in the context of clearance of expenditure financed) | 10 |
| 2005/C 217/9 | Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-373/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Freiburg in Ceyhun Aydinli v Land Baden-Württemberg (EEC-Turkey Association — Free movement of workers — Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Articles 6 and 7 — Criminal conviction — Prison sentence — Effect on right of residence) | 10 |
| 2005/C 217/0 | Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-383/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof in Ergül Dogan v Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Vorarlberg (EEC-Turkey Association — Free movement of workers — Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Article 6(1), third indent, and Article 6(2) — Duly registered as belonging to the labour market of a Member State — Criminal conviction — Prison sentence — Effect on right of residence) | 11 |
| 2005/C 217/1 | Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-386/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Airports — Groundhandling — Directive 96/67/EC) | 11 |
| 2005/C 217/2 | Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 July 2005 in Case C-403/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof in Egon Schempp v Finanzamt München V (Citizenship of the Union — Articles 12 EC and 18 EC — Income tax — Deductibility from taxable income of maintenance paid by a taxpayer resident in Germany to his former spouse resident in Austria — Proof of taxation of the maintenance payments in that Member State) | 12 |
| 2005/C 217/3 | Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-433/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Negotiation, conclusion, ratification and implementation of bilateral agreements by a Member State — Transport of goods or passengers by inland waterway — External competence of the Community — Article 10 EC — Regulations (EEC) No 3921/91 and (EC) No 1356/96) | 12 |
| 2005/C 217/4 | Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-434/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in P. Charles and T.S. Charles-Tijmens v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT directive — Deduction of input tax paid — Immovable property used in part for the business and in part for private purposes) | 13 |
| 2005/C 217/5 | Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-435/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen in British American Tobacco International Ltd, Newman Shipping & Agency Company NV v Belgian State (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 2 and 27(5) — Turnover tax — Scope — Chargeable event and taxable amount — Supply of goods for consideration — Theft of goods from a tax warehouse) | 13 |
| 2005/C 217/6 | Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2005 in Case C-456/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 98/44/EC — Legal protection of biotechnological inventions — Admissibility — Failure to transpose — Articles 3(1), 5(2), 6(2) and 8 to 12) | 14 |
| 2005/C 217/7 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case C-465/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz Kretztechnik AG v Finanzamt Linz (Sixth VAT Directive — Supplies for consideration — Share issue — Admission of a company to a stock exchange — Deductibility of VAT) | 14 |
| 2005/C 217/8 | Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-515/03: (Reference for a preliminary ruling, Finanzgericht Hamburg) in Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Conditions for granting them — Import of the product into the non-member country of destination — Meaning — Customs formalities for release for consumption in the non-member country — Substantial processing or working — Reimportation into the Community — Abuse of law) | 15 |
| 2005/C 217/9 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-30/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano in Ursel Koschitzki v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Old-age pension — Calculation of the theoretical amount of benefit — Inclusion of the amount necessary to reach the minimum pension under national legislation) | 15 |
| 2005/C 217/0 | Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-71/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo in Administración del Estado v Xunta de Galicia (State aid — Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) — Scheme of aid to shipbuilding and ship conversion falling outside the scope of Directive 90/684/EEC — Failure to give prior notification — Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 87(1) EC) — Concept of State aid — Effect on trade between Member States) | 16 |
| 2005/C 217/1 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-107/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo in Comité Andaluz de Agricultura Ecológica v Administración General del Estado, Comité Aragonés de Agricultura Ecológica (Community rules on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs — National legislation authorising the use of the term bio in respect of products which have not been organically produced) | 16 |
| 2005/C 217/2 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-114/04: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 28 EC — Measures having equivalent effect — Withdrawal of a marketing authorisation for a phytopharmaceutical reference product — Lack of transition period for parallel importers with a view to liquidation of their stocks) | 17 |
| 2005/C 217/3 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 June 2005 in Case C-138/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 83/183/EEC — Transfer of residence from one Member State to another — Fee charged on registration of motor vehicles — Tax exemption) | 17 |
| 2005/C 217/4 | Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-141/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias in Michail Peros v Techniko Epimelitirio Ellados (Directive 89/48/EEC — Workers — Recognition of diplomas — Mechanical engineer) | 18 |
| 2005/C 217/5 | Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-142/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias in Maria Aslanidou v Ypourgos Ygeias & Pronoias (Directive 92/51/EEC — Workers — Recognition of diplomas — Occupational therapist) | 18 |
| 2005/C 217/6 | Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 July 2005 in Joined Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) in The Queen, Alliance for Natural Health and Others v Secretary of State for Health, and The Queen, National Association of Health Stores and Others v Secretary of State for Health, National Assembly for Wales (Approximation of laws — Food supplements — Directive 2002/46/EC — Prohibition on trade in products not complying with the directive — Validity — Legal basis — Article 95 EC — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 — Principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and equal treatment — Right to property — Freedom to pursue an economic activity — Obligation to state reasons) | 19 |
| 2005/C 217/7 | Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-192/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation in Lagardère Active Broadcast v Société pour la perception de la rémunération équitable (SPRE) and Others (Copyright and neighbouring rights — Broadcasting of phonograms — Equitable remuneration) | 19 |
| 2005/C 217/8 | Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-203/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main in Gebrüder Stolle GmbH & Co. KG v Heidegold Geflügelspezialitäten GmbH (Poultrymeat — Marketing standards — Prohibition on including certain indications concerning the type of farming on labelling — Regulation (EEC) No 1538/91) | 20 |
| 2005/C 217/9 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-207/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Novara in Paolo Vergani v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio di Arona (Social policy — Equal pay and equal treatment for men and women — Redundancy payment — Tax treatment determined by reference to age — Tax advantage) | 20 |
| 2005/C 217/0 | Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Joined Cases C-304/04 and 305/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam in Jacob Meijer BV, Eagle International Freight BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification of sound cards for computers — Validity of Regulations (EC) Nos 2086/97 and 2261/98) | 21 |
| 2005/C 217/1 | Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-449/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/51/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period) | 21 |
| 2005/C 217/2 | Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-79/05 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 — Substances that deplete the ozone layer — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period) | 22 |
| 2005/C 217/3 | Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2005 in Joined Cases C-162/03, C-185/03, C-44/04, C-45/04, C-223/04, C-224/04, C-271/04 and C-272/04: References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano in Azienda Agricola Balconi Andrea (ex Guido) v Regione Lombardia and Others, and in Azienda Agricola Schnabl Rosa and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura and Others (Milk and milk products — Additional levy on milk — Regulations (EEC) No 856/84 and No 3950/92 — Reference quantity — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Administrative penalties — Conditions) | 22 |
| 2005/C 217/4 | Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-52/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht in Personalrat der Feuerwehr Hamburg v Leiter der Feuerwehr Hamburg (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Social policy — Protection of workers' health and safety — Directives 89/391/EEC and 93/104/EC — Scope — Operational crews of a public fire service — Inclusion — Conditions) | 23 |
| 2005/C 217/5 | Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 April 2005 in Case C-80/04 P DLD Trading Co. v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Causal link between the conduct complained of and the alleged damage — No such link — Subject-matter of the dispute — Manifest inadmissibility) | 23 |
| 2005/C 217/6 | Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 June 2005 in Case C-358/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Vicenza in Caseificio Valdagnese Srl v Regione Veneto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility) | 24 |
| 2005/C 217/7 | Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-420/04 P: Georgios Gouvras v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Posting — Secondment in the interests of the service — Retrospective change of place of employment and of the financial entitlements relating to it — Recovery of sum not due) | 24 |
| 2005/C 217/8 | Case C-315/04 P: Appeal brought on 23 July 2004 (14 July 2004 by fax) by Raffaele Dipace against the order made on 1 April 2004 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-106/04 between Raffaele Dipace and the Italian Republic | 24 |
| 2005/C 217/9 | Case C-184/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that court of 22 April 2005 in case of Twoh International BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst | 25 |
| 2005/C 217/0 | Case C-239/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal, Brussels by order of that court of 30 May 2005 in BVBA Management Training en Consultancy v Benelux-Merkenbureau | 25 |
| 2005/C 217/1 | Case C-247/05: Action brought on 9 June 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands | 26 |
| 2005/C 217/2 | Case C-250/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht by order of that court of 14 April 2005 in Turbon International GmbH — as universal successor in title to Kores Nordic Deutschland GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz — Zoll- und Verbrauchsteuerabteilung | 26 |
| 2005/C 217/3 | Case C-257/05: Action brought on 17 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria | 27 |
| 2005/C 217/4 | Case C-263/05: Action brought on 23 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic | 27 |
| 2005/C 217/5 | Case C-265/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) by order of that court of 21 June 2005 in José Perez Naranjo v Caisse régionale d'assurance maladie (CRAM) Nord-Picardie | 28 |
| 2005/C 217/6 | Case C-270/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos by decision of that court of 9 June 2005 in Athinaiki Khartopiia A.E. v L. Panagiotidis and Others | 29 |
| 2005/C 217/7 | Case C-272/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep, Antwerp by judgment of that court of 30 June 2005 in 1. ..., 2. ... and 3. Bowens, Werner Constant Maria | 29 |
| 2005/C 217/8 | Case C-276/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 24 May 2005 in The Wellcome Foundation Ltd. v Paranova Pharmazeutika Handels GmbH | 29 |
| 2005/C 217/9 | Case C-282/05 P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2005 (fax: 12 July 2005) by Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG, against the judgment delivered on 21 April 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-28/03 between Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG, and the Commission of the European Communities | 30 |
| 2005/C 217/0 | Case C-294/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden | 31 |
| 2005/C 217/1 | Removal from the register of Case C-156/02 | 31 |
| 2005/C 217/2 | Removal from the register of Case C-225/03 | 31 |
| 2005/C 217/3 | Removal from the register of Case C-527/03 | 31 |
| 2005/C 217/4 | Removal from the register of Case C-81/04 | 32 |
| 2005/C 217/5 | Removal from the register of Case C-256/04 | 32 |
| 2005/C 217/6 | Removal from the register of Case C-319/04 | 32 |
| 2005/C 217/7 | Removal from the register of Case C-337/04 | 32 |
| 2005/C 217/8 | Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-362/04, C-363/04, C-364/04 and C-365/04 | 32 |
| 2005/C 217/9 | Removal from the register of Case C-370/04 | 32 |
| 2005/C 217/0 | Removal from the register of Case C-387/04 | 33 |
| 2005/C 217/1 | Removal from the register of Case C-396/04 | 33 |
| 2005/C 217/2 | Removal from the register of Case C-424/04 | 33 |
| 2005/C 217/3 | Removal from the register of Case C-497/04 | 33 |
| 2005/C 217/4 | Removal from the register of Case C-498/04 | 33 |
| 2005/C 217/5 | Removal from the register of Case C-511/04 | 33 |
| 2005/C 217/6 | Removal from the register of Case C-515/04 | 34 |
| 2005/C 217/7 | Removal from the register of Case C-56/05 | 34 |
| | COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE |
| 2005/C 217/8 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2005 in Case T-387/02 Dorte Schmidt-Brown v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Action for annulment — Accusations against an official — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Rejection of request for financial assistance) | 35 |
| 2005/C 217/9 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2005 in Case T-158/03 Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA v Commission of the European Communities (Directive 91/414/EEC — Plant protection products — Active substances — Metalaxyl — Authorisation procedure — Summary dossier and complete dossier — Time-limits — Principle of proportionality — Misuse of powers) | 35 |
| 2005/C 217/0 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2005 in Case T-190/03: Sanni Olesen v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Work done for another State or for an international organisation — Definition of State — Main occupation) | 36 |
| 2005/C 217/1 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2005 in Case T-301/03 Canali Ireland Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Figurative mark CANAL JEAN CO. NEW YORK — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark CANALI — Likelihood of confusion) | 36 |
| 2005/C 217/2 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2005 in Case T-347/03 Eugénio Branco, Lda v Commission of the European Communities (European Social Fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Subcontracting — Acquired rights — Reasonable time) | 37 |
| 2005/C 217/3 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2005 in Case T-370/03 Jacques Wunenburger v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Post of Director of the Commission EuropeAid Co-operation Office — Vacancy notice — Rejection of candidature — Action for annulment — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Statement of reasons — Manifest error of assessment) | 37 |
| 2005/C 217/4 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 July 2005 in Case T-385/03 Miles Handelsgesellschaft International mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark containing the verbal element Biker Miles — Earlier Community word mark MILES — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94) | 38 |
| 2005/C 217/5 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2005 in Case T-439/03 Ulrike Eppe v the European Parliament (Open competition — Non-admission to tests — Necessary professional experience) | 38 |
| 2005/C 217/6 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2005 in Case T-9/04 Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Social security benefits — Accident — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Admissibility — Statement of reasons) | 39 |
| 2005/C 217/7 | Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 July 2005 in Case T-148/04 TQ3 Travel Solutions Belgium SA v Commission of the European Communities (Public service contracts — Community tendering procedure — Provision of travel agency services for travel undertaken by officials and agents of the institutions) | 39 |
| 2005/C 217/8 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2005 in Case T-361/02 Deutsche Bahn AG v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Competitor's complaint — Action for failure to act — Position taken — Manifest inadmissibility) | 40 |
| 2005/C 217/9 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2005 in Case T-384/03 Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No requirement to adjudicate) | 40 |
| 2005/C 217/0 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2005 in Case T-158/04 Erich Drazdansky v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark UUP'S — Earlier national word marks UP — Dismissal of the application for restitutio in integrum (re-establishment of rights) — Article 78(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Action manifestly without legal substance) | 41 |
| 2005/C 217/1 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2005 in Case T-170/04: FederDoc and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 — Common organisation of the market in wine — System governing traditional terms — Legal persons — Persons individually concerned — Inadmissibility) | 41 |
| 2005/C 217/2 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 June 2005 in Case T-254/04: Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas v Committee of the Regions of the European Union (Officials — Recruitment — Post of Secretary General of the Committee of the Regions — Enforcement of a judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling an appointment decision — Annulment by the institution of the vacancy notice and commencement of a new recruitment procedure) | 42 |
| 2005/C 217/3 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2005 in Case T-349/04 Parfümerie Douglas GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Removal of the earlier mark from the register — No need to adjudicate) | 42 |
| 2005/C 217/4 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2005 in Case T-386/04 Eridania SpA and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector — Pricing system — Regionalisation — Deficit areas — Classification of Italy — Marketing year 2004/2005 — Regulation (EC) No 1216/2004 — Action for annulment — Natural and legal persons — Inadmissibility) | 43 |
| 2005/C 217/5 | Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2005 in Case T-482/04: KOMSA Kommunikation Sachsen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — Case does not proceed to judgment) | 43 |
| 2005/C 217/6 | Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2005 in Case T-171/05 R: Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim relief — Officials — Suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility) | 44 |
| 2005/C 217/7 | Case T-186/05: Action brought on 10 May 2005 by Alenia Marconi Systems SpA against the Commission of the European Communities | 44 |
| 2005/C 217/8 | Case T-222/05: Action brought on 9 June 2005 by Francisco Rossi Ferreras against the Commission of the European Communities | 45 |
| 2005/C 217/9 | Case T-223/05: Action brought on 8 June 2005 by CAMAR Srl against the Commission of the European Communities | 45 |
| 2005/C 217/0 | Case T-233/05: Action brought on 23 June 2005 by Nomura Principal Investment Plc and Nomura International Plc against the Commission of the European Communities | 46 |
| 2005/C 217/1 | Case T-245/05: Action brought on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 46 |
| 2005/C 217/2 | Case T-246/05: Action brought on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 47 |
| 2005/C 217/3 | Case T-247/05: Action brought on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 48 |
| 2005/C 217/4 | Case T-248/05: Action brought on 1 July 2005 by MP Temporärpersonal GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 49 |
| 2005/C 217/5 | Case T-249/05: Action brought on 30 June 2005 by Tineke Duyster against the Commission of the European Communities | 50 |
| 2005/C 217/6 | Case T-250/05: Action brought on 24 June 2005 by European Dynamics S.A. against the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities | 50 |
| 2005/C 217/7 | Case T-251/05: Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, SA against the Commission of the European Communities | 51 |
| 2005/C 217/8 | Case T-255/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 52 |
| 2005/C 217/9 | Case T-259/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities | 52 |
| 2005/C 217/0 | Case T-262/05: Action brought on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 53 |
| 2005/C 217/1 | Case T-263/05: Action brought on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 54 |
| 2005/C 217/2 | Case T-264/05: Action brought on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 54 |
| 2005/C 217/3 | Case T-273/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 55 |
| 2005/C 217/4 | Case T-274/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 56 |
| 2005/C 217/5 | Case T-275/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 56 |
| 2005/C 217/6 | Case T-276/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 57 |
| 2005/C 217/7 | Case T-277/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 58 |
| 2005/C 217/8 | Case T-278/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 59 |
| 2005/C 217/9 | Case T-279/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 60 |
| 2005/C 217/0 | Case T-280/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) | 61 |
| 2005/C 217/1 | Removal from the Register of Case T-50/97 | 61 |
| 2005/C 217/2 | Removal from the Register of Case T-51/97 | 62 |
| 2005/C 217/3 | Removal from the Register of Case T-53/97 | 62 |
| 2005/C 217/4 | Removal from the Register of Case T-54/97 | 62 |
| 2005/C 217/5 | Removal from the Register of Case T-55/97 | 62 |
| 2005/C 217/6 | Removal from the Register of Case T-56/97 | 62 |
| 2005/C 217/7 | Removal from the Register of Case T-57/97 | 62 |
| 2005/C 217/8 | Removal from the Register of Case T-58/97 | 63 |
| 2005/C 217/9 | Removal from the Register of Case T-59/97 | 63 |
| 2005/C 217/0 | Removal from the Register of Case T-63/97 | 63 |
| 2005/C 217/1 | Removal from the Register of Case T-65/97 | 63 |
| 2005/C 217/2 | Removal from the Register of Case T-66/97 | 63 |
| 2005/C 217/3 | Removal from the Register of Case T-67/97 | 63 |
| 2005/C 217/4 | Removal from the Register of Case T-69/97 | 64 |
| 2005/C 217/5 | Removal from the Register of Case T-145/97 | 64 |
| 2005/C 217/6 | Removal from the Register of Case T-385/02 | 64 |
| 2005/C 217/7 | Removal from the Register of Case T-437/03 | 64 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Court of Justice

COURT OF JUSTICE

2005/C 217/1

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-26/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (Association arrangements for the overseas countries and territories — Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — Regulation (EC) No 2423/1999 — Action for annulment — Safeguard measures — Proportionality)

1

2005/C 217/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-180/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (Association arrangements for the overseas countries and territories — Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 — Action for annulment — Safeguard measures — Proportionality)

1

2005/C 217/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-452/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (Association arrangements for the overseas countries and territories — Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa — Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 — Action for annulment — Safeguard measures — Proportionality)

2

2005/C 217/4

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-57/02 P: Compañía española para la fabricación de aceros inoxidables SA (Acerinox) v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — ECSC Treaty — Agreement, decisions and concerted practices — Alloy surcharge — Parallel conduct — Reduction of the fine — Cooperation in the administrative procedure — Rights of the defence)

2

2005/C 217/5

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Joined Cases C-65/02 P and C-73/02 P: ThyssenKrupp Stainless GmbH and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — ECSC Treaty — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Alloy surcharge — Reduction of the fine — Cooperation in the administrative procedure — Attributability of the infringement — Rights of the defence)

3

2005/C 217/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 July 2005 in Case C-304/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Fisheries — Control obligations placed on the Member States — Judgment of the Court establishing a breach of obligations — Non-compliance — Article 228 EC — Payment of a lump sum — Imposition of a penalty payment)

3

2005/C 217/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 June 2005 in Case C-378/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad in Waterschap Zeeuws Vlaanderen v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (VAT — Capital goods acquired by a body governed by public law — Public authority — Transaction engaged in as taxable person and transaction engaged in as non-taxable person — Right to adjustment and deduction)

4

2005/C 217/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-418/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht in Praktiker Bau- und Heimwerkermärkte AG (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Trade marks in respect of services — Registration — Services provided in connection with retail trade — Specification of content of services — Similarity between the services in question and goods or other services)

4

2005/C 217/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-135/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Community rules on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs — National legislation authorising the use of the term bio in respect of products which have not been organically produced)

5

2005/C 217/0

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-147/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 12 EC, 149 EC and 150 EC — Conditions of access to university education — Discrimination)

5

2005/C 217/1

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-149/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — System of fishing quotas — 1991 to 1996 fishing years)

6

2005/C 217/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 July 2005 in Case C-198/03 P: Commission of the European Communities v CEVA Santé Animale SA, Pfizer Enterprises Sàrl, International Federation for Animal Health (IFAH) (Appeal — Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 — Veterinary medicinal products — Establishment of a maximum residue level for progesterone — Conditions governing the non-contractual liability of the Community)

6

2005/C 217/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-208/03 P: Jean-Marie Le Pen v European Parliament (Appeal — Elections of Members of the European Parliament — Lack of uniform electoral procedure — Application of national law — Disqualification of a Member of the European Parliament from holding office following a criminal conviction — Measure by which the European Parliament takes note of that disqualification — Action for annulment — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

7

2005/C 217/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-231/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia: Consorzio Aziende Metano (Coname) v Comune di Cingia de' Botti (Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 81 EC — Concession for the management of a public gas-distribution service)

7

2005/C 217/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Joined Cases C-259/03, C-260/03 and C-343/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark (System of fishing quotas — 1988, 1990 to 1992, 1994 and 1995 to 1997 fishing years)

8

2005/C 217/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-349/03: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 77/799/EEC — Mutual assistance by the competent authorities — Fields of VAT and excise duties — Partial transposition — Territory of Gibraltar)

9

2005/C 217/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-364/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 84/360/EEC — Atmospheric pollution — Industrial plant — Electricity power station)

9

2005/C 217/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-370/03: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Financial treatment to be applied in the context of clearance of expenditure financed)

10

2005/C 217/9

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-373/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Freiburg in Ceyhun Aydinli v Land Baden-Württemberg (EEC-Turkey Association — Free movement of workers — Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Articles 6 and 7 — Criminal conviction — Prison sentence — Effect on right of residence)

10

2005/C 217/0

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Case C-383/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof in Ergül Dogan v Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Vorarlberg (EEC-Turkey Association — Free movement of workers — Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Article 6(1), third indent, and Article 6(2) — Duly registered as belonging to the labour market of a Member State — Criminal conviction — Prison sentence — Effect on right of residence)

11

2005/C 217/1

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-386/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Airports — Groundhandling — Directive 96/67/EC)

11

2005/C 217/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 July 2005 in Case C-403/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof in Egon Schempp v Finanzamt München V (Citizenship of the Union — Articles 12 EC and 18 EC — Income tax — Deductibility from taxable income of maintenance paid by a taxpayer resident in Germany to his former spouse resident in Austria — Proof of taxation of the maintenance payments in that Member State)

12

2005/C 217/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-433/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Negotiation, conclusion, ratification and implementation of bilateral agreements by a Member State — Transport of goods or passengers by inland waterway — External competence of the Community — Article 10 EC — Regulations (EEC) No 3921/91 and (EC) No 1356/96)

12

2005/C 217/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-434/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in P. Charles and T.S. Charles-Tijmens v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT directive — Deduction of input tax paid — Immovable property used in part for the business and in part for private purposes)

13

2005/C 217/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-435/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen in British American Tobacco International Ltd, Newman Shipping & Agency Company NV v Belgian State (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 2 and 27(5) — Turnover tax — Scope — Chargeable event and taxable amount — Supply of goods for consideration — Theft of goods from a tax warehouse)

13

2005/C 217/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 June 2005 in Case C-456/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 98/44/EC — Legal protection of biotechnological inventions — Admissibility — Failure to transpose — Articles 3(1), 5(2), 6(2) and 8 to 12)

14

2005/C 217/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case C-465/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz Kretztechnik AG v Finanzamt Linz (Sixth VAT Directive — Supplies for consideration — Share issue — Admission of a company to a stock exchange — Deductibility of VAT)

14

2005/C 217/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-515/03: (Reference for a preliminary ruling, Finanzgericht Hamburg) in Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Conditions for granting them — Import of the product into the non-member country of destination — Meaning — Customs formalities for release for consumption in the non-member country — Substantial processing or working — Reimportation into the Community — Abuse of law)

15

2005/C 217/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-30/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano in Ursel Koschitzki v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Old-age pension — Calculation of the theoretical amount of benefit — Inclusion of the amount necessary to reach the minimum pension under national legislation)

15

2005/C 217/0

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-71/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo in Administración del Estado v Xunta de Galicia (State aid — Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) — Scheme of aid to shipbuilding and ship conversion falling outside the scope of Directive 90/684/EEC — Failure to give prior notification — Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 87(1) EC) — Concept of State aid — Effect on trade between Member States)

16

2005/C 217/1

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-107/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo in Comité Andaluz de Agricultura Ecológica v Administración General del Estado, Comité Aragonés de Agricultura Ecológica (Community rules on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs — National legislation authorising the use of the term bio in respect of products which have not been organically produced)

16

2005/C 217/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-114/04: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 28 EC — Measures having equivalent effect — Withdrawal of a marketing authorisation for a phytopharmaceutical reference product — Lack of transition period for parallel importers with a view to liquidation of their stocks)

17

2005/C 217/3

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 June 2005 in Case C-138/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 83/183/EEC — Transfer of residence from one Member State to another — Fee charged on registration of motor vehicles — Tax exemption)

17

2005/C 217/4

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-141/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias in Michail Peros v Techniko Epimelitirio Ellados (Directive 89/48/EEC — Workers — Recognition of diplomas — Mechanical engineer)

18

2005/C 217/5

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-142/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias in Maria Aslanidou v Ypourgos Ygeias & Pronoias (Directive 92/51/EEC — Workers — Recognition of diplomas — Occupational therapist)

18

2005/C 217/6

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 July 2005 in Joined Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) in The Queen, Alliance for Natural Health and Others v Secretary of State for Health, and The Queen, National Association of Health Stores and Others v Secretary of State for Health, National Assembly for Wales (Approximation of laws — Food supplements — Directive 2002/46/EC — Prohibition on trade in products not complying with the directive — Validity — Legal basis — Article 95 EC — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 — Principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and equal treatment — Right to property — Freedom to pursue an economic activity — Obligation to state reasons)

19

2005/C 217/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-192/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation in Lagardère Active Broadcast v Société pour la perception de la rémunération équitable (SPRE) and Others (Copyright and neighbouring rights — Broadcasting of phonograms — Equitable remuneration)

19

2005/C 217/8

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-203/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main in Gebrüder Stolle GmbH & Co. KG v Heidegold Geflügelspezialitäten GmbH (Poultrymeat — Marketing standards — Prohibition on including certain indications concerning the type of farming on labelling — Regulation (EEC) No 1538/91)

20

2005/C 217/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-207/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Novara in Paolo Vergani v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio di Arona (Social policy — Equal pay and equal treatment for men and women — Redundancy payment — Tax treatment determined by reference to age — Tax advantage)

20

2005/C 217/0

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2005 in Joined Cases C-304/04 and 305/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam in Jacob Meijer BV, Eagle International Freight BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification of sound cards for computers — Validity of Regulations (EC) Nos 2086/97 and 2261/98)

21

2005/C 217/1

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-449/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/51/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

21

2005/C 217/2

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-79/05 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 — Substances that deplete the ozone layer — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

22

2005/C 217/3

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2005 in Joined Cases C-162/03, C-185/03, C-44/04, C-45/04, C-223/04, C-224/04, C-271/04 and C-272/04: References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano in Azienda Agricola Balconi Andrea (ex Guido) v Regione Lombardia and Others, and in Azienda Agricola Schnabl Rosa and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura and Others (Milk and milk products — Additional levy on milk — Regulations (EEC) No 856/84 and No 3950/92 — Reference quantity — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Administrative penalties — Conditions)

22

2005/C 217/4

Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-52/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht in Personalrat der Feuerwehr Hamburg v Leiter der Feuerwehr Hamburg (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Social policy — Protection of workers' health and safety — Directives 89/391/EEC and 93/104/EC — Scope — Operational crews of a public fire service — Inclusion — Conditions)

23

2005/C 217/5

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 April 2005 in Case C-80/04 P DLD Trading Co. v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Causal link between the conduct complained of and the alleged damage — No such link — Subject-matter of the dispute — Manifest inadmissibility)

23

2005/C 217/6

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 June 2005 in Case C-358/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Vicenza in Caseificio Valdagnese Srl v Regione Veneto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)

24

2005/C 217/7

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-420/04 P: Georgios Gouvras v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Posting — Secondment in the interests of the service — Retrospective change of place of employment and of the financial entitlements relating to it — Recovery of sum not due)

24

2005/C 217/8

Case C-315/04 P: Appeal brought on 23 July 2004 (14 July 2004 by fax) by Raffaele Dipace against the order made on 1 April 2004 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-106/04 between Raffaele Dipace and the Italian Republic

24

2005/C 217/9

Case C-184/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that court of 22 April 2005 in case of Twoh International BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

25

2005/C 217/0

Case C-239/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal, Brussels by order of that court of 30 May 2005 in BVBA Management Training en Consultancy v Benelux-Merkenbureau

25

2005/C 217/1

Case C-247/05: Action brought on 9 June 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

26

2005/C 217/2

Case C-250/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht by order of that court of 14 April 2005 in Turbon International GmbH — as universal successor in title to Kores Nordic Deutschland GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz — Zoll- und Verbrauchsteuerabteilung

26

2005/C 217/3

Case C-257/05: Action brought on 17 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

27

2005/C 217/4

Case C-263/05: Action brought on 23 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

27

2005/C 217/5

Case C-265/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) by order of that court of 21 June 2005 in José Perez Naranjo v Caisse régionale d'assurance maladie (CRAM) Nord-Picardie

28

2005/C 217/6

Case C-270/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos by decision of that court of 9 June 2005 in Athinaiki Khartopiia A.E. v L. Panagiotidis and Others

29

2005/C 217/7

Case C-272/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep, Antwerp by judgment of that court of 30 June 2005 in 1. ..., 2. ... and 3. Bowens, Werner Constant Maria

29

2005/C 217/8

Case C-276/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 24 May 2005 in The Wellcome Foundation Ltd. v Paranova Pharmazeutika Handels GmbH

29

2005/C 217/9

Case C-282/05 P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2005 (fax: 12 July 2005) by Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG, against the judgment delivered on 21 April 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-28/03 between Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG, and the Commission of the European Communities

30

2005/C 217/0

Case C-294/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

31

2005/C 217/1

Removal from the register of Case C-156/02

31

2005/C 217/2

Removal from the register of Case C-225/03

31

2005/C 217/3

Removal from the register of Case C-527/03

31

2005/C 217/4

Removal from the register of Case C-81/04

32

2005/C 217/5

Removal from the register of Case C-256/04

32

2005/C 217/6

Removal from the register of Case C-319/04

32

2005/C 217/7

Removal from the register of Case C-337/04

32

2005/C 217/8

Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-362/04, C-363/04, C-364/04 and C-365/04

32

2005/C 217/9

Removal from the register of Case C-370/04

32

2005/C 217/0

Removal from the register of Case C-387/04

33

2005/C 217/1

Removal from the register of Case C-396/04

33

2005/C 217/2

Removal from the register of Case C-424/04

33

2005/C 217/3

Removal from the register of Case C-497/04

33

2005/C 217/4

Removal from the register of Case C-498/04

33

2005/C 217/5

Removal from the register of Case C-511/04

33

2005/C 217/6

Removal from the register of Case C-515/04

34

2005/C 217/7

Removal from the register of Case C-56/05

34

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

2005/C 217/8

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2005 in Case T-387/02 Dorte Schmidt-Brown v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Action for annulment — Accusations against an official — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Rejection of request for financial assistance)

35

2005/C 217/9

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2005 in Case T-158/03 Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA v Commission of the European Communities (Directive 91/414/EEC — Plant protection products — Active substances — Metalaxyl — Authorisation procedure — Summary dossier and complete dossier — Time-limits — Principle of proportionality — Misuse of powers)

35

2005/C 217/0

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2005 in Case T-190/03: Sanni Olesen v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Work done for another State or for an international organisation — Definition of State — Main occupation)

36

2005/C 217/1

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2005 in Case T-301/03 Canali Ireland Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Figurative mark CANAL JEAN CO. NEW YORK — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark CANALI — Likelihood of confusion)

36

2005/C 217/2

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2005 in Case T-347/03 Eugénio Branco, Lda v Commission of the European Communities (European Social Fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Subcontracting — Acquired rights — Reasonable time)

37

2005/C 217/3

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2005 in Case T-370/03 Jacques Wunenburger v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Post of Director of the Commission EuropeAid Co-operation Office — Vacancy notice — Rejection of candidature — Action for annulment — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Statement of reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

37

2005/C 217/4

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 July 2005 in Case T-385/03 Miles Handelsgesellschaft International mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark containing the verbal element Biker Miles — Earlier Community word mark MILES — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

38

2005/C 217/5

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2005 in Case T-439/03 Ulrike Eppe v the European Parliament (Open competition — Non-admission to tests — Necessary professional experience)

38

2005/C 217/6

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2005 in Case T-9/04 Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Social security benefits — Accident — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Admissibility — Statement of reasons)

39

2005/C 217/7

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 July 2005 in Case T-148/04 TQ3 Travel Solutions Belgium SA v Commission of the European Communities (Public service contracts — Community tendering procedure — Provision of travel agency services for travel undertaken by officials and agents of the institutions)

39

2005/C 217/8

Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2005 in Case T-361/02 Deutsche Bahn AG v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Competitor's complaint — Action for failure to act — Position taken — Manifest inadmissibility)

40

2005/C 217/9

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2005 in Case T-384/03 Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No requirement to adjudicate)

40

2005/C 217/0

Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2005 in Case T-158/04 Erich Drazdansky v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark UUP'S — Earlier national word marks UP — Dismissal of the application for restitutio in integrum (re-establishment of rights) — Article 78(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Action manifestly without legal substance)

41

2005/C 217/1

Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2005 in Case T-170/04: FederDoc and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 — Common organisation of the market in wine — System governing traditional terms — Legal persons — Persons individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

41

2005/C 217/2

Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 June 2005 in Case T-254/04: Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas v Committee of the Regions of the European Union (Officials — Recruitment — Post of Secretary General of the Committee of the Regions — Enforcement of a judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling an appointment decision — Annulment by the institution of the vacancy notice and commencement of a new recruitment procedure)

42

2005/C 217/3

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2005 in Case T-349/04 Parfümerie Douglas GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Removal of the earlier mark from the register — No need to adjudicate)

42

2005/C 217/4

Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2005 in Case T-386/04 Eridania SpA and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector — Pricing system — Regionalisation — Deficit areas — Classification of Italy — Marketing year 2004/2005 — Regulation (EC) No 1216/2004 — Action for annulment — Natural and legal persons — Inadmissibility)

43

2005/C 217/5

Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2005 in Case T-482/04: KOMSA Kommunikation Sachsen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — Case does not proceed to judgment)

43

2005/C 217/6

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2005 in Case T-171/05 R: Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim relief — Officials — Suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility)

44

2005/C 217/7

Case T-186/05: Action brought on 10 May 2005 by Alenia Marconi Systems SpA against the Commission of the European Communities

44

2005/C 217/8

Case T-222/05: Action brought on 9 June 2005 by Francisco Rossi Ferreras against the Commission of the European Communities

45

2005/C 217/9

Case T-223/05: Action brought on 8 June 2005 by CAMAR Srl against the Commission of the European Communities

45

2005/C 217/0

Case T-233/05: Action brought on 23 June 2005 by Nomura Principal Investment Plc and Nomura International Plc against the Commission of the European Communities

46

2005/C 217/1

Case T-245/05: Action brought on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

46

2005/C 217/2

Case T-246/05: Action brought on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

47

2005/C 217/3

Case T-247/05: Action brought on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

48

2005/C 217/4

Case T-248/05: Action brought on 1 July 2005 by MP Temporärpersonal GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

49

2005/C 217/5

Case T-249/05: Action brought on 30 June 2005 by Tineke Duyster against the Commission of the European Communities

50

2005/C 217/6

Case T-250/05: Action brought on 24 June 2005 by European Dynamics S.A. against the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

50

2005/C 217/7

Case T-251/05: Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, SA against the Commission of the European Communities

51

2005/C 217/8

Case T-255/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

52

2005/C 217/9

Case T-259/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

52

2005/C 217/0

Case T-262/05: Action brought on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

53

2005/C 217/1

Case T-263/05: Action brought on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

54

2005/C 217/2

Case T-264/05: Action brought on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

54

2005/C 217/3

Case T-273/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

55

2005/C 217/4

Case T-274/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

56

2005/C 217/5

Case T-275/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

56

2005/C 217/6

Case T-276/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

57

2005/C 217/7

Case T-277/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

58

2005/C 217/8

Case T-278/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

59

2005/C 217/9

Case T-279/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

60

2005/C 217/0

Case T-280/05: Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

61

2005/C 217/1

Removal from the Register of Case T-50/97

61

2005/C 217/2

Removal from the Register of Case T-51/97

62

2005/C 217/3

Removal from the Register of Case T-53/97

62

2005/C 217/4

Removal from the Register of Case T-54/97

62

2005/C 217/5

Removal from the Register of Case T-55/97

62

2005/C 217/6

Removal from the Register of Case T-56/97

62

2005/C 217/7

Removal from the Register of Case T-57/97

62

2005/C 217/8

Removal from the Register of Case T-58/97

63

2005/C 217/9

Removal from the Register of Case T-59/97

63

2005/C 217/0

Removal from the Register of Case T-63/97

63

2005/C 217/1

Removal from the Register of Case T-65/97

63

2005/C 217/2

Removal from the Register of Case T-66/97

63

2005/C 217/3

Removal from the Register of Case T-67/97

63

2005/C 217/4

Removal from the Register of Case T-69/97

64

2005/C 217/5

Removal from the Register of Case T-145/97

64

2005/C 217/6

Removal from the Register of Case T-385/02

64

2005/C 217/7

Removal from the Register of Case T-437/03

64

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| 2005/C 217/8 | Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 205, 20.8.2005 | 65 |

III   Notices

2005/C 217/8

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 205, 20.8.2005

Official Journal of the European Union

65

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

I Information

Court of Justice

COURT OF JUSTICE

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/1

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-26/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Association arrangements for the overseas countries and territories - Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa - Regulation (EC) No 2423/1999 - Action for annulment - Safeguard measures - Proportionality)

(2005/C 217/01)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-26/00, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: M. Fierstra and J. van Bakel) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and C. van der Hauwaert), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 29 January 2000 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 149 of 27.05.2000.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/1

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-180/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Association arrangements for the overseas countries and territories - Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa - Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 - Action for annulment - Safeguard measures - Proportionality)

(2005/C 217/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-180/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: M. Fierstra and J. van Bakel) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and C. van der Hauwaert), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad), and by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and D. Colas) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 12 May 2000 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211 of 22.07.2000.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/2

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-452/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Association arrangements for the overseas countries and territories - Imports of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa - Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 - Action for annulment - Safeguard measures - Proportionality)

(2005/C 217/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-452/00, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: J. van Bakel) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and C. van der Hauwaert), supported by Kingdom of Spain, (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 6 December 2000 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45 of 10.02.2001.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/2

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-57/02 P: Compañía española para la fabricación de aceros inoxidables SA (Acerinox) v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Appeal - ECSC Treaty - Agreement, decisions and concerted practices - Alloy surcharge - Parallel conduct - Reduction of the fine - Cooperation in the administrative procedure - Rights of the defence)

(2005/C 217/04)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-57/02 P, Compañía española para la fabricación de aceros inoxidables SA (Acerinox), established in Madrid (Spain) (Lawyers: A. Vandencasteele and D. Waelbroeck), the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: A. Whelan, and J. Flynn, Barrister) — appeal under Article 49 of the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 22 February 2002 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 13 December 2001 in Case T-48/98 Acerinox v Commission to the extent to which it rejected the plea in law put forward by Compañía española para la fabricación de aceros inoxidables SA (Acerinox) alleging the lack of a statement of reasons relating to its alleged participation in an agreement on the Spanish market; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 13 December 2001 in Case T-48/98 Acerinox v Commission to the extent to which it rejected the plea in law put forward by Compañía española para la fabricación de aceros inoxidables SA (Acerinox) alleging the lack of a statement of reasons relating to its alleged participation in an agreement on the Spanish market;

| 2. | For the rest, dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the rest, dismisses the appeal;

| 3. | Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Compañía española para la fabricación de aceros inoxidables SA (Acerinox) to the extent to which it is based on a plea in law alleging that the Commission of the European Communities was wrong to attribute evidential value to the fax sent on 14 January 1994 by Avesta Sheffield AB to its subsidiaries; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Compañía española para la fabricación de aceros inoxidables SA (Acerinox) to the extent to which it is based on a plea in law alleging that the Commission of the European Communities was wrong to attribute evidential value to the fax sent on 14 January 1994 by Avesta Sheffield AB to its subsidiaries;

| 4. | Orders Compañía española para la fabricación de aceros inoxidables SA (Acerinox) to pay the costs of the present proceedings. The costs of the proceedings at first instance leading to the judgment of the Court of First Instance referred to in paragraph 1 of the operative part of this judgment shall be borne in the manner set out in paragraph 3 of the operative part of that judgment. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders Compañía española para la fabricación de aceros inoxidables SA (Acerinox) to pay the costs of the present proceedings. The costs of the proceedings at first instance leading to the judgment of the Court of First Instance referred to in paragraph 1 of the operative part of this judgment shall be borne in the manner set out in paragraph 3 of the operative part of that judgment.

---

(1)  OJ C 109 of 04.05.2002.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Joined Cases C-65/02 P and C-73/02 P: ThyssenKrupp Stainless GmbH and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Appeals - ECSC Treaty - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Alloy surcharge - Reduction of the fine - Cooperation in the administrative procedure - Attributability of the infringement - Rights of the defence)

(2005/C 217/05)

Languages of the case: German and Italian

In Joined Cases C-65/02 P and C-73/02 P: two appeals under Article 49 of the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 28 February 2002 by ThyssenKrupp Stainless GmbH, formerly Krupp Thyssen Stainless GmbH (Lawyer: M. Klusmann), and by ThyssenKrupp Acciai speciali Terni SpA, formerly Acciai speciali Terni SpA (Lawyers: A. Giardina and G. Di Tommaso), the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Whelan, assisted by H.-J. Freund, and A. Whelan and V. Superti, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeals and the cross-appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeals and the cross-appeal;

| 2. | Orders ThyssenKrupp Stainless GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Acciai speciali Terni SpA and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ThyssenKrupp Stainless GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Acciai speciali Terni SpA and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109 of 04.05.2002.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 12 July 2005

in Case C-304/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Fisheries - Control obligations placed on the Member States - Judgment of the Court establishing a breach of obligations - Non-compliance - Article 228 EC - Payment of a lump sum - Imposition of a penalty payment)

(2005/C 217/06)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-304/02, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Nolin, H. van Lier and T. van Rijn) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and A. Colomb), action under Article 228 EC for failure to fulfil obligations brought on 27 August 2002, the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Presidents of Chambers, C.Gulmann, J.P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, subsequently M.F. Contet, Principal Administrator, and H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that:






  — | by failing to carry out controls of fishing activities in accordance with the requirements laid down by the Community provisions, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that:

—

by failing to carry out controls of fishing activities in accordance with the requirements laid down by the Community provisions, and

| — | by failing to ensure that action is taken in respect of infringements of the rules governing fishing activities in accordance with the requirements laid down by the Community provisions, |
| --- | --- |

—

by failing to ensure that action is taken in respect of infringements of the rules governing fishing activities in accordance with the requirements laid down by the Community provisions,

the French Republic has not implemented all the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of 11 June 1991 in Case C-64/88 Commission v France and has accordingly failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228 EC;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, into the account ‘European Community own resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 57 761 250 for each period of six months from delivery of the present judgment at the end of which the judgment in Case C-64/88 Commission v France has not yet been fully complied with; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, into the account ‘European Community own resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 57 761 250 for each period of six months from delivery of the present judgment at the end of which the judgment in Case C-64/88 Commission v France has not yet been fully complied with;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, into the account ‘European Community own resources’, a lump sum of EUR 20 000 000; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, into the account ‘European Community own resources’, a lump sum of EUR 20 000 000;

| 4. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 2 June 2005

in Case C-378/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad in Waterschap Zeeuws Vlaanderen v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

(VAT - Capital goods acquired by a body governed by public law - Public authority - Transaction engaged in as taxable person and transaction engaged in as non-taxable person - Right to adjustment and deduction)

(2005/C 217/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-378/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad (Netherlands), made by decision of 18 October 2002, received at the Court on 21 October 2002, in the proceedings between Waterschap Zeeuws Vlaanderen and Staatssecretaris van Financiën — the Court (Third Chamber) composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General, M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

A body governed by public law which purchases capital goods as a public authority within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, that is to say as a non-taxable person, and subsequently sells those goods as a taxable person, is not entitled, in respect of that sale, to a right of adjustment based on Article 20 of that directive in order to deduct the VAT paid on the purchase of those goods.

---

(1)  OJ C 7 of 11.01.2003.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 7 July 2005

in Case C-418/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht in Praktiker Bau- und Heimwerkermärkte AG (1)

(Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Trade marks in respect of services - Registration - Services provided in connection with retail trade - Specification of content of services - Similarity between the services in question and goods or other services)

(2005/C 217/08)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-418/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany), made by decision of 15 October 2002, received at the Court on 20 November 2002, in the proceedings concerning Praktiker Bau- und Heimwerkermärkte AG — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, in which it ruled:

| 1. | The concept of ‘services’ referred to by First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, in particular in Article 2, covers services provided in connection with retail trade in goods. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The concept of ‘services’ referred to by First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, in particular in Article 2, covers services provided in connection with retail trade in goods.

| 2. | For the purposes of registration of a trade mark for such services, it is not necessary to specify in detail the service(s) in question. However, details must be provided with regard to the goods or types of goods to which those services relate. |
| --- | --- |

2.

For the purposes of registration of a trade mark for such services, it is not necessary to specify in detail the service(s) in question. However, details must be provided with regard to the goods or types of goods to which those services relate.

---

(1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-135/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Community rules on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs - National legislation authorising the use of the term ‘bio’ in respect of products which have not been organically produced)

(2005/C 217/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-135/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Berscheid, B. Doherty, F. Jimeno Fernandez and S. Pardo Quintillán) v Kingdom of Spain (Agents: N. Díaz Abad and E. Braquehais Conesa) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 26 March 2003 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 146 of 21.06.2003.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 7 July 2005

in Case C-147/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 12 EC, 149 EC and 150 EC - Conditions of access to university education - Discrimination)

(2005/C 217/10)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-147/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Bogensberger and D. Martin), supported by Republic of Finland, (Agents: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski and T. Pynnä) v Republic of Austria (Agents: H. Dossi and E. Riedl, assisted by C. Ruhs and H. Kasparovsky) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 31 March 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Fifth Chamber acting for the President of the Second Chamber, C. Gulmann, J. Makarczyk (Rapporteur), P. Kūris and J. Klučka, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that holders of secondary education diplomas awarded in other Member States can gain access to higher and university education organised by it under the same conditions as holders of secondary education diplomas awarded in Austria, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 EC, 149 EC and 150 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that holders of secondary education diplomas awarded in other Member States can gain access to higher and university education organised by it under the same conditions as holders of secondary education diplomas awarded in Austria, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 EC, 149 EC and 150 EC;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/6

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 21 July 2005

in Case C-149/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - System of fishing quotas - 1991 to 1996 fishing years)

(2005/C 217/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-149/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T. van Rijn) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx, assisted by H. Gilliams) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 1 April 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, having failed






  — | to establish the appropriate detailed rules for utilisation of the quotas allocated to it for each of the fishing years in the period 1991 to 1996; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, having failed

—

to establish the appropriate detailed rules for utilisation of the quotas allocated to it for each of the fishing years in the period 1991 to 1996;

| — | in respect of each of those fishing years to ensure compliance with Community legislation on the conservation of fisheries resources through the supervision of fishing activities and appropriate monitoring of the unloading and registration of catches; |
| --- | --- |

—

in respect of each of those fishing years to ensure compliance with Community legislation on the conservation of fisheries resources through the supervision of fishing activities and appropriate monitoring of the unloading and registration of catches;

| — | in respect of each of those fishing years within a reasonable period of time provisionally to prohibit fishing with vessels which fly its flag or are registered within its territory when the applicable quota was deemed to have been exhausted; |
| --- | --- |

—

in respect of each of those fishing years within a reasonable period of time provisionally to prohibit fishing with vessels which fly its flag or are registered within its territory when the applicable quota was deemed to have been exhausted;

| — | to adopt administrative or criminal measures against those responsible for fishing activities after bans had come into force, |
| --- | --- |

—

to adopt administrative or criminal measures against those responsible for fishing activities after bans had come into force,

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources, Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture, Article 1 and Article 11(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities and Article 2, Article 21(1) and (2) and Article 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/6

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 12 July 2005

in Case C-198/03 P: Commission of the European Communities v CEVA Santé Animale SA, Pfizer Enterprises Sàrl, International Federation for Animal Health (IFAH) (1)

(Appeal - Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 - Veterinary medicinal products - Establishment of a maximum residue level for progesterone - Conditions governing the non-contractual liability of the Community)

(2005/C 217/12)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-198/03 P — Appeal under Artricle 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 12 May 2003 by Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. Christoforou and M. Shotter), the other parties to the proceedings being: CEVA Santé Animale SA, having its registered office in Libourne (France), (Lawyers: D. Waelbroeck, N. Rampal, and U. Zinsmeister), Pfizer Enterprises Sàrl, formerly Pharmacia Enterprises SA and, prior to that, Pharmacia & Upjohn SA, having its registered office in Luxembourg (Luxembourg) (Lawyers: D. Waelbroeck, N. Rampa and U. Zinsmeister), supported by International Federation for Animal Health (IFAH), formerly Fédération européenne de la santé animale (Fedesa), established in Brussels (Belgium), (Lawyer: A. Vandencasteele) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur), C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, J. P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský, U. Lõhmus and E. Levits, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 26 February 2003 in Joined Cases T-344/00 and T-345/00 CEVA and Pharmacia Enterprises v Commission in so far as it established that there had been inaction on the part of the Commission of the European Communities between 1 January 2000 and 25 July 2001 of such a kind as to give rise to liability on the part of the Community; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 26 February 2003 in Joined Cases T-344/00 and T-345/00 CEVA and Pharmacia Enterprises v Commission in so far as it established that there had been inaction on the part of the Commission of the European Communities between 1 January 2000 and 25 July 2001 of such a kind as to give rise to liability on the part of the Community;

| 2. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the actions;

| 3. | Orders CEVA Santé Animale SA and Pfizer Enterprises Sàrl to pay the costs of both the proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities and the present proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders CEVA Santé Animale SA and Pfizer Enterprises Sàrl to pay the costs of both the proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities and the present proceedings;

| 4. | Orders the International Federation for Animal Health to bear its own costs in both the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the International Federation for Animal Health to bear its own costs in both the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 213 of 06.09.2003.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/7

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 7 July 2005

in Case C-208/03 P: Jean-Marie Le Pen v European Parliament (1)

(Appeal - Elections of Members of the European Parliament - Lack of uniform electoral procedure - Application of national law - Disqualification of a Member of the European Parliament from holding office following a criminal conviction - Measure by which the European Parliament ‘takes note’ of that disqualification - Action for annulment - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 217/13)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-208/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged on 10 May 2003 by Jean-Marie Le Pen, residing at Saint-Cloud (France), (Agent: F. Wagner), the other party to the proceedings being the European Parliament (Agents: H. Krück and C. Karamarcos), the French Republic, (Agents: R. Abraham, G. de Bergues and L. Bernheim), intervener at first instance — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Le Pen to pay the costs of these proceedings including those of the proceedings for interim measures; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Le Pen to pay the costs of these proceedings including those of the proceedings for interim measures;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/7

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 21 July 2005

in Case C-231/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia: Consorzio Aziende Metano (Coname) v Comune di Cingia de' Botti (1)

(Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 81 EC - Concession for the management of a public gas-distribution service)

(2005/C 217/14)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-231/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia (Lombardy Regional Administrative Court) (Italy), made by decision of 14 February 2003, received at the Court on 28 May 2003, in the proceedings between Consorzio Aziende Metano (Coname) and Comune di Cingia de' Botti, intervener: Padania Acque SpA — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, R. Schintgen, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, G. Arestis, M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský and J. Klučka, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it ruled:

Articles 43 EC and 49 EC preclude, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the direct award by a municipality of a concession for the management of the public gas-distribution service to a company in which there is a majority public holding and in the capital of which the municipality in question has a 0.97 % holding, if that award does not comply with transparency requirements which, without necessarily implying an obligation to hold an invitation to tender, are, in particular, such as to enable an undertaking located in the territory of a Member State other than that of the municipality in question to have access to appropriate information regarding that concession, so that, if that undertaking had so wished, it would have been in a position to express its interest in obtaining that concession.

---

(1)  OJ C 226 of 20.09.2003.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/8

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Joined Cases C-259/03, C-260/03 and C-343/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark (1)

(System of fishing quotas - 1988, 1990 to 1992, 1994 and 1995 to 1997 fishing years)

(2005/C 217/15)

Language of the case: Danish

In Joined Cases C-259/03, C-260/03 and C-343/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: H.-P. Hartvig) v Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: J. Molde) — three actions under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 17 June and 4 August 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and J. Malenovský, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, having failed






  — | to establish the appropriate detailed rules for utilisation of the quotas allocated to it for each of the following fishing years — 1988, 1990 to 1992, 1994 and 1995 to 1997; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, having failed

—

to establish the appropriate detailed rules for utilisation of the quotas allocated to it for each of the following fishing years — 1988, 1990 to 1992, 1994 and 1995 to 1997;

| — | in respect of each of those fishing years to ensure compliance with Community legislation on the conservation of fisheries resources through the supervision of fishing activities and appropriate monitoring of the unloading and registration of catches; |
| --- | --- |

—

in respect of each of those fishing years to ensure compliance with Community legislation on the conservation of fisheries resources through the supervision of fishing activities and appropriate monitoring of the unloading and registration of catches;

| — | in respect of each of those fishing years within a reasonable period of time provisionally to prohibit fishing with vessels which fly its flag or are registered within its territory when the applicable quota was deemed to have been exhausted; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in respect of each of those fishing years within a reasonable period of time provisionally to prohibit fishing with vessels which fly its flag or are registered within its territory when the applicable quota was deemed to have been exhausted; and

| — | to notify the Commission of the European Communities of the implementation of fishing bans in 1988, |
| --- | --- |

—

to notify the Commission of the European Communities of the implementation of fishing bans in 1988,

the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources (pre-1993 fishing years), Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture (post-1993 fishing years), Article 1 and Article 11(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities (pre-1993 fishing years) and Article 2, Article 21(1) and (2) and Article 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (post-1993 fishing years).

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the applications. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the applications.

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003

OJ C 239 of 04.10.2003.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/9

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 21 July 2005

in Case C-349/03: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 77/799/EEC - Mutual assistance by the competent authorities - Fields of VAT and excise duties - Partial transposition - Territory of Gibraltar)

(2005/C 217/16)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-349/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: R. Lyal), supported by: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: K. Manji and R. Caudwell, assisted by D. Wyatt QC) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 7 August 2003 — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, G. Arestis, M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský and J. Klučka, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to implement in the territory of Gibraltar, in the fields of value added tax and excise duties, Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation, as amended by Council Directive 79/1070/EEC of 6 December 1979 and by Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to implement in the territory of Gibraltar, in the fields of value added tax and excise duties, Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation, as amended by Council Directive 79/1070/EEC of 6 December 1979 and by Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 239 of 04.10.2003.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/9

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 7 July 2005

in Case C-364/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 84/360/EEC - Atmospheric pollution - Industrial plant - Electricity power station)

(2005/C 217/17)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-364/03, action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 22 August 2003, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and M. Konstantinidis) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou), the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by not defining the policies or strategies for progressively adapting in line with the best available technology the steam turbine units and the gas turbine units of the power station operated by the Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou (public electricity undertaking) situated in Linoperamata on the Island of Crete, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Council Directive 84/360/EEC of 28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by not defining the policies or strategies for progressively adapting in line with the best available technology the steam turbine units and the gas turbine units of the power station operated by the Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou (public electricity undertaking) situated in Linoperamata on the Island of Crete, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Council Directive 84/360/EEC of 28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251 of 18.10.2003.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/10

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 21 July 2005

in Case C-370/03: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(EAGGF - Financial treatment to be applied in the context of clearance of expenditure financed)

(2005/C 217/18)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-370/03: Hellenic Republic (Agents: G. Kanellopoulos and V. Kontolaimos) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande, assisted by N. Korogiannakis) — ACTION for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 27 August 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caiomh, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2003/481/EC of 27 June 2003 on the financial treatment to be applied, in the context of clearance of expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Guarantee Section, in certain cases of irregularity by operators, in so far as it relates to the amount of GRD 14 272 278 (EUR 41 884.90) mentioned in Annex I thereto, headed ‘Amounts to be charged to the national budget’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2003/481/EC of 27 June 2003 on the financial treatment to be applied, in the context of clearance of expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund Guarantee Section, in certain cases of irregularity by operators, in so far as it relates to the amount of GRD 14 272 278 (EUR 41 884.90) mentioned in Annex I thereto, headed ‘Amounts to be charged to the national budget’;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 18.10.2003.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/10

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 7 July 2005

in Case C-373/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Freiburg in Ceyhun Aydinli v Land Baden-Württemberg (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association - Free movement of workers - Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Articles 6 and 7 - Criminal conviction - Prison sentence - Effect on right of residence)

(2005/C 217/19)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-373/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgericht Freiburg (Germany), made by decision of 12 March 2003, received at the Court on 5 September 2003, in the proceedings between Ceyhun Aydinli and Land Baden-Württemberg — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and P. Kūris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, in which it ruled:

A Turkish national who enjoys the right of free access to any paid employment of his choice under the second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, does not forfeit that right either as a result of his prolonged absence from the labour market due to imprisonment, even for a period of several years followed by long-term drug treatment, or on account of the fact that at the time of the decision to expel him he was an adult and no longer resided with the Turkish worker from whom he derived his right of residence but lived independently.

---

(1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2005.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/11

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 7 July 2005

in Case C-383/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof in Ergül Dogan v Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Vorarlberg (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association - Free movement of workers - Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Article 6(1), third indent, and Article 6(2) - Duly registered as belonging to the labour market of a Member State - Criminal conviction - Prison sentence - Effect on right of residence)

(2005/C 217/20)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-383/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria), made by decision of 4 September 2003, received at the Court on 12 September 2003, in the proceedings between Ergül Dogan and Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Vorarlberg — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and P. Kūris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, in which it ruled:

A Turkish worker who enjoys the right of free access to any paid employment of his choice under the third indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, does not forfeit that right because he is not in employment during his imprisonment, even for several years, if his absence from the labour market of the host Member State is only temporary.

The employment rights conferred by that provision on the person concerned and the concomitant right of residence may be limited only on grounds of public policy, public security and public health pursuant to Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80, or on account of the fact that the Turkish national concerned has failed to find new paid employment within a reasonable time after his release.

---

(1)  OJ C 35 of 7.2.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/11

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-386/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Airports - Groundhandling - Directive 96/67/EC)

(2005/C 217/21)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-386/03, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Huttunen and M. Niejahr) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and A. Tiemann) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 12 September 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by adopting measures contrary to Articles 16 and 18 of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports, in Paragraphs 8(2) and 9(3) of the Regulation on airport groundhandling services (Verordnung über Bodenabfertigungsdienste auf Flugplätzen) of 10 December 1997, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by adopting measures contrary to Articles 16 and 18 of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports, in Paragraphs 8(2) and 9(3) of the Regulation on airport groundhandling services (Verordnung über Bodenabfertigungsdienste auf Flugplätzen) of 10 December 1997, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 264 of 01.11.2003.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/12

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 12 July 2005

in Case C-403/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof in Egon Schempp v Finanzamt München V (1)

(Citizenship of the Union - Articles 12 EC and 18 EC - Income tax - Deductibility from taxable income of maintenance paid by a taxpayer resident in Germany to his former spouse resident in Austria - Proof of taxation of the maintenance payments in that Member State)

(2005/C 217/22)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-403/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 22 July 2003, received at the Court on 29 September 2003, in the proceedings between Egon Schempp and Finanzamt München V — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, A. La Pergola, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, J. Klučka, U. Lõhmus, E. Levits and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 July 2005, in which it ruled:

The first paragraph of Article 12 EC and Article 18(1) EC must be interpreted as not precluding a taxpayer resident in Germany from being unable, under national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to deduct from his taxable income in that Member State the maintenance paid to his former spouse resident in another Member State in which the maintenance is not taxable, where he would be entitled to do so if his former spouse were resident in Germany.

---

(1)  OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/12

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-433/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Negotiation, conclusion, ratification and implementation of bilateral agreements by a Member State - Transport of goods or passengers by inland waterway - External competence of the Community - Article 10 EC - Regulations (EEC) No 3921/91 and (EC) No 1356/96)

(2005/C 217/23)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-433/03, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Schmidt, W. Wils and A. Manville) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing, and G. Schohe, Lawyer) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 10 October 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J. Makarczyk and P. Kūris, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by ratifying and implementing:






  — | the agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of Romania on inland waterway transport, signed in Bonn on 22 October 1991, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by ratifying and implementing:

—

the agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of Romania on inland waterway transport, signed in Bonn on 22 October 1991,

| — | the agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of the Republic of Poland on inland waterway transport, signed in Warsaw on 8 November 1991, and |
| --- | --- |

—

the agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of the Republic of Poland on inland waterway transport, signed in Warsaw on 8 November 1991, and

| — | the agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of Ukraine on inland waterway transport, signed in Bonn on 14 July 1992, |
| --- | --- |

—

the agreement between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of Ukraine on inland waterway transport, signed in Bonn on 14 July 1992,

without consulting or cooperating with the Commission of the European Communities, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 EC;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/13

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-434/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in P. Charles and T.S. Charles-Tijmens v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

(Sixth VAT directive - Deduction of input tax paid - Immovable property used in part for the business and in part for private purposes)

(2005/C 217/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-434/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 10 October 2003, received at the Court on 13 October 2003, in the proceedings between P. Charles and T.S. Charles-Tijmens and Staatssecretaris van Financiën — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris, E. Juhász and G. Arestis, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it ruled:

Article 6(2) and Article 17(2) and (6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, adopted before that directive came into force, which does not make it possible for a taxable person to allocate capital goods used in part for business purposes and in part for purposes other than those of his business wholly to his business and, where appropriate, to deduct immediately and in full the value added tax due on the acquisition of those goods.

---

(1)  OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/13

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-435/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen in British American Tobacco International Ltd, Newman Shipping & Agency Company NV v Belgian State (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 2 and 27(5) - Turnover tax - Scope - Chargeable event and taxable amount - Supply of goods for consideration - Theft of goods from a tax warehouse)

(2005/C 217/25)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-435/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium), made by decision of 7 October 2003, received at the Court on 14 October 2003, in the proceedings between British American Tobacco International Ltd, Newman Shipping & Agency Company NV and Belgian State — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and J. Malenovský, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it ruled:

| 1. | The theft of goods does not constitute a supply of goods for consideration within the meaning of Article 2 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, and therefore cannot as such be subject to value added tax. The circumstance that goods are, like those at issue in the main proceedings, subject to excise duty does not affect that conclusion. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The theft of goods does not constitute a supply of goods for consideration within the meaning of Article 2 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, and therefore cannot as such be subject to value added tax. The circumstance that goods are, like those at issue in the main proceedings, subject to excise duty does not affect that conclusion.

| 2. | An authorisation to apply measures facilitating monitoring of the charging of value added tax, granted to a Member State on the basis of Article 27(5) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, does not empower that State to subject transactions to that tax other than those set out in Article 2 of the Directive. Such an authorisation thus cannot provide a legal basis for national legislation subjecting to value added tax the theft of goods from a tax warehouse. |
| --- | --- |

2.

An authorisation to apply measures facilitating monitoring of the charging of value added tax, granted to a Member State on the basis of Article 27(5) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, does not empower that State to subject transactions to that tax other than those set out in Article 2 of the Directive. Such an authorisation thus cannot provide a legal basis for national legislation subjecting to value added tax the theft of goods from a tax warehouse.

---

(1)  OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/14

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 16 June 2005

in Case C-456/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 98/44/EC - Legal protection of biotechnological inventions - Admissibility - Failure to transpose - Articles 3(1), 5(2), 6(2) and 8 to 12)

(2005/C 217/26)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-456/03, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: K. Banks) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 27 October 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 June 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 3(1), 5(2), 6(2) and 8 to 12 of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 3(1), 5(2), 6(2) and 8 to 12 of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Italian Republic to bear all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Italian Republic to bear all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7 of 10.1.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/14

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 26 May 2005

in Case C-465/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz Kretztechnik AG v Finanzamt Linz (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Supplies for consideration - Share issue - Admission of a company to a stock exchange - Deductibility of VAT)

(2005/C 217/27)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-465/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Austria), made by decision of 20 October 2003, received at the Court on 5 November 2003, in the proceedings between Kretztechnik AG and Finanzamt Linz, the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | A new share issue does not constitute a transaction falling within the scope of Article 2(1) of Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995. |
| --- | --- |

1.

A new share issue does not constitute a transaction falling within the scope of Article 2(1) of Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995.

| 2. | Article 17(1) and (2) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 95/7, confer the right to deduct in its entirety the VAT charged on the expenses incurred by a taxable person for the various supplies acquired by him in connection with a share issue, provided that all the transactions undertaken by the taxable person in the context of his economic activity constitute taxed transactions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 17(1) and (2) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 95/7, confer the right to deduct in its entirety the VAT charged on the expenses incurred by a taxable person for the various supplies acquired by him in connection with a share issue, provided that all the transactions undertaken by the taxable person in the context of his economic activity constitute taxed transactions.

---

(1)  OJ C 47 of 21.02.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/15

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 21 July 2005

in Case C-515/03: (Reference for a preliminary ruling, Finanzgericht Hamburg) in Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (1)

(Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Export refunds - Conditions for granting them - Import of the product into the non-member country of destination - Meaning - Customs formalities for release for consumption in the non-member country - Substantial processing or working - Reimportation into the Community - Abuse of law)

(2005/C 217/28)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-515/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), made by decision of 12 November 2003, received at the Court on 9 December 2003, in the proceedings between Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it ruled:

The condition for obtaining a differentiated export refund laid down in Article 17(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1384/95 of 19 June 1995, as regards in particular the adjustments necessary for the implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, namely clearance through customs for release of the product concerned for consumption in the non-member country of destination, is fulfilled where that product, on which import duties were paid in that country, undergoes substantial processing or working there within the meaning of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, even if the product deriving from such processing or working is then re-exported to the Community, with reimbursement of the duties levied in that country and payment of customs import duties in the Community.

In those circumstances, reimbursement of the export refund may nevertheless be required if the national court considers that evidence of an abusive practice on the part of the exporter has been produced, in accordance with the rules of national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/15

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 21 July 2005

in Case C-30/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano in Ursel Koschitzki v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) (1)

(Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Old-age pension - Calculation of the theoretical amount of benefit - Inclusion of the amount necessary to reach the minimum pension under national legislation)

(2005/C 217/29)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-30/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale di Bolzano (Italy), made by decision of 9 January 2004, received at the Court on 28 January 2004, in the proceedings between Ursel Koschitzki and Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the First Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), K. Schiemann, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it ruled:

Article 46(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in its version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 of 22 December 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine the theoretical amount of the pension on which the calculation of the pro rata pension is based, the competent institution is not required to take into consideration a supplement intended to bring the pension to the minimum level under national legislation where, on account of the fact that the income limits fixed by the national legislation on that supplement are exceeded, an insured person who has worked exclusively in the Member State concerned cannot lay claim to such a supplement.

---

(1)  OJ C 85 of 03.04.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/16

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 21 July 2005

in Case C-71/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo in Administración del Estado v Xunta de Galicia (1)

(State aid - Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) - Scheme of aid to shipbuilding and ship conversion falling outside the scope of Directive 90/684/EEC - Failure to give prior notification - Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 87(1) EC) - Concept of State aid - Effect on trade between Member States)

(2005/C 217/30)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-71/04: REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain), made by decision of 22 December 2003, received at the Court on 16 February 2004, in the proceedings between Administración del Estado and Xunta de Galicia — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it ruled:

The Commission of the European Communities must be given prior notification, pursuant to Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC), of a scheme of aid to shipbuilding and ship conversion such as that set up by Decree No 217/1994 of 23 June 1994, which does not fall within the scope of Council Directive 90/684/EEC of 21 December 1990 on aid to shipbuilding, if it is established that the scheme is capable of itself of giving rise to the grant of State aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC). It is for the national court, in cases of infringement of Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty, to draw the necessary consequences, in accordance with its national law, with regard to both the validity of the acts giving effect to the aid and the recovery of financial support granted in disregard of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 94 of 17.04.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/16

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-107/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo in Comité Andaluz de Agricultura Ecológica v Administración General del Estado, Comité Aragonés de Agricultura Ecológica (1)

(Community rules on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs - National legislation authorising the use of the term ‘bio’ in respect of products which have not been organically produced)

(2005/C 217/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-107/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain), made by decision of 1 December 2003, received at the Court on 1 March 2004, in the proceedings between Comité Andaluz de Agricultura Ecológica and Administración General del Estado, Comité Aragonés de Agricultura Ecológica — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič and E. Levits, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it ruled:

| 1. | Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended to include livestock production by Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 was to be interpreted as not precluding products which were not organically produced from bearing, in Spain, the indication ‘biológico’ or its derivative ‘bio’ in the labelling, advertising material and commercial documents; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended to include livestock production by Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 was to be interpreted as not precluding products which were not organically produced from bearing, in Spain, the indication ‘biológico’ or its derivative ‘bio’ in the labelling, advertising material and commercial documents;

| 2. | That same Article 2, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 392/2004 of 24 February 2004, must be interpreted as precluding from now on such products from bearing, in Spain, the indication ‘biológico’ or its derivative ‘bio’ in the labelling, advertising material and commercial documents. |
| --- | --- |

2.

That same Article 2, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 392/2004 of 24 February 2004, must be interpreted as precluding from now on such products from bearing, in Spain, the indication ‘biológico’ or its derivative ‘bio’ in the labelling, advertising material and commercial documents.

---

(1)  OJ C 94 of 17.04.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/17

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-114/04: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 28 EC - Measures having equivalent effect - Withdrawal of a marketing authorisation for a phytopharmaceutical reference product - Lack of transition period for parallel importers with a view to liquidation of their stocks)

(2005/C 217/32)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-114/04: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: B. Schima) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma) — ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 3 March 2004 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to grant parallel importers a reasonable period in which to liquidate their stocks following withdrawal of a marketing authorisation for a phytopharmaceutical reference product, the Federal Republic of Germany failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to grant parallel importers a reasonable period in which to liquidate their stocks following withdrawal of a marketing authorisation for a phytopharmaceutical reference product, the Federal Republic of Germany failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

| 2. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/17

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 16 June 2005

in Case C-138/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 83/183/EEC - Transfer of residence from one Member State to another - Fee charged on registration of motor vehicles - Tax exemption)

(2005/C 217/33)

Language of the case: Danish

In Case C-138/04: action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 15 March 2004, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and T. Fich) v Kingdom of Denmark (Agents: J. Molde and A. Rahbøl Jacobsen) the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, E. Juhász and M.Ilešič, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 June 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 168 of 26.06.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/18

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-141/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias in Michail Peros v Techniko Epimelitirio Ellados (1)

(Directive 89/48/EEC - Workers - Recognition of diplomas - Mechanical engineer)

(2005/C 217/34)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-141/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece), made by decision of 30 December 2003, received at the Court on 17 March 2004, in the proceedings between Michail Peros and Techniko Epimelitirio Ellados — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it ruled:

Where national measures transposing Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration, in the version in force until 31 July 2001, have not been adopted within the period prescribed in Article 12 thereof, a national of a Member State may rely on Article 3(a) of that directive in order to obtain, in the host Member State, authorisation to pursue a regulated profession such as that of mechanical engineer.

That possibility may not be made dependent on recognition of the qualifications of the person concerned by the competent national authorities.

---

(1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/18

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-142/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias in Maria Aslanidou v Ypourgos Ygeias & Pronoias (1)

(Directive 92/51/EEC - Workers - Recognition of diplomas - Occupational therapist)

(2005/C 217/35)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-142/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece), made by decision of 30 December 2003, received at the Court on 17 March 2004, in the proceedings between Maria Aslanidou and Ypourgos Ygeias & Pronoias — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it ruled:

Where national measures transposing Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC have not been adopted within the period prescribed in Article 17 thereof, a national of a Member State may rely on Article 3(a) of that directive in order to obtain, in the host Member State, authorisation to pursue a regulated profession such as that of occupational therapist.

That possibility may not be made dependent on official recognition of the qualifications of the person concerned by the competent national authorities.

The compensatory measures referred to in Article 4(1) of Directive 92/51 may be imposed on the person concerned only in so far as they are provided for in the national legislation in force at the time of processing the application in question.

---

(1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/19

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 12 July 2005

in Joined Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) in The Queen, Alliance for Natural Health and Others v Secretary of State for Health, and The Queen, National Association of Health Stores and Others v Secretary of State for Health, National Assembly for Wales (1)

(Approximation of laws - Food supplements - Directive 2002/46/EC - Prohibition on trade in products not complying with the directive - Validity - Legal basis - Article 95 EC - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 - Principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and equal treatment - Right to property - Freedom to pursue an economic activity - Obligation to state reasons)

(2005/C 217/36)

Language of the case: English

In Joined Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made by decisions of 17 March 2004, received at the Court on 26 March 2004, in the proceedings between The Queen, on the application of: Alliance for Natural Health (C-154/04), Nutri-Link Ltd and Secretary of State for Health, National Assembly for Wales and The Queen, on the application of: National Association of Health Stores (C-155/04), Health Food Manufacturers Ltd v Secretary of State for Health, National Assembly for Wales — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, J. P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, J. Klučka, U. Lõhmus, E. Levits and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 July 2005, in which it ruled:

Examination of the question referred to the Court has revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Articles 3, 4(1) and 15(b) of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements.

---

(1)  OJ C 118 of 30.04.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/19

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-192/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation in Lagardère Active Broadcast v Société pour la perception de la rémunération équitable (SPRE) and Others (1)

(Copyright and neighbouring rights - Broadcasting of phonograms - Equitable remuneration)

(2005/C 217/37)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-192/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Cour de cassation (France), made by decision of 17 February 2004, received at the Court on 26 April 2004, in the proceedings between Lagardère Active Broadcast (the successor in title to Europe 1 communication SA) and Société pour la perception de la rémunération équitable (SPRE) and Gesellschaft zur Verwertung von Leistungsschutzrechten mbH (GVL); third party: Compagnie européenne de radiodiffusion et de télévision Europe 1 SA (CERT) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, S. von Bahr, J. Malenovský (Rapporteur) and U. Lõhmus, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it ruled:

| 1. | In the case of a broadcast of the kind at issue in this case, Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission does not preclude the fee for phonogram use being governed not only by the law of the Member State in whose territory the broadcasting company is established but also by the legislation of the Member State in which, for technical reasons, the terrestrial transmitter broadcasting to the first State is located. |
| --- | --- |

1.

In the case of a broadcast of the kind at issue in this case, Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission does not preclude the fee for phonogram use being governed not only by the law of the Member State in whose territory the broadcasting company is established but also by the legislation of the Member State in which, for technical reasons, the terrestrial transmitter broadcasting to the first State is located.

| 2. | Article 8(2) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property must be interpreted as meaning that, for determination of the equitable remuneration mentioned in that provision, the broadcasting company is not entitled unilaterally to deduct from the amount of the royalty for phonogram use payable in the Member State in which it is established the amount of the royalty paid or claimed in the Member State in whose territory the terrestrial transmitter broadcasting to the first State is located. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 8(2) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property must be interpreted as meaning that, for determination of the equitable remuneration mentioned in that provision, the broadcasting company is not entitled unilaterally to deduct from the amount of the royalty for phonogram use payable in the Member State in which it is established the amount of the royalty paid or claimed in the Member State in whose territory the terrestrial transmitter broadcasting to the first State is located.

---

(1)  OJ C 156 of 12. 06.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/20

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-203/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main in Gebrüder Stolle GmbH & Co. KG v Heidegold Geflügelspezialitäten GmbH (1)

(Poultrymeat - Marketing standards - Prohibition on including certain indications concerning the type of farming on labelling - Regulation (EEC) No 1538/91)

(2005/C 217/38)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-203/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany), made by decision of 28 April 2004, received at the Court on 7 May 2004, in the proceedings between Gebrüder Stolle GmbH & Co. KG and Heidegold Geflügelspezialitäten GmbH — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it ruled:

Article 10(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1538/91 of 5 June 1991 introducing detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1906/90 on certain marketing standards for poultrymeat, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1321/2002 of 22 July 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that the wording ‘reared under controlled conditions’ (‘kontrollierte Aufzucht’) constitutes an indication of the type of farming and for that reason that article does not allow an undertaking to include that wording on the labelling of a product falling within the scope of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 190 of 24.07.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/20

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 21 July 2005

in Case C-207/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Novara in Paolo Vergani v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio di Arona (1)

(Social policy - Equal pay and equal treatment for men and women - Redundancy payment - Tax treatment determined by reference to age - Tax advantage)

(2005/C 217/39)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-207/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Novara (Italy), made by decision of 26 April 2004, received at the Court on 10 May 2004, in the proceedings between Paolo Vergani and Agenzia delle Entrate, Ufficio di Arona, — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), K. Schiemann, E. Juhász and E. Levits, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it ruled:

Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions must be interpreted as precluding a provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which grants to workers who have passed the age of 50 years in the case of women and 55 years in the case of men, as a voluntary redundancy incentive, an advantage consisting in taxation at a rate reduced by half, of sums paid on cessation of the employment relationship.

---

(1)  JO C 179 of 10.07.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/21

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 7 July 2005

in Joined Cases C-304/04 and 305/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam in Jacob Meijer BV, Eagle International Freight BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification of sound cards for computers - Validity of Regulations (EC) Nos 2086/97 and 2261/98)

(2005/C 217/40)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Joined Cases C-304/04 and 305/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands), made by decisions of 13 July 2004, received at the Court on 19 July 2004, in the proceedings between Jacob Meijer BV (C-304/04), Eagle International Freight BV (C-305/04) and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Arnhem, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric and M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), Judges, J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar; gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 of 4 November 1997 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2261/98 of 26 October 1998 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff are invalid in so far as they classify sound cards for computers such as those at issue in the main proceedings under heading 8543 89 79 of the Combined Nomenclature.

---

(1)  OJ C 228 of 11.9.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/21

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 21 July 2005

in Case C-449/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/51/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2005/C 217/41)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-449/04: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. O'Reilly and A.- M. Rouchaud-Joët) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 27 October 2004 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/51/EC of 28 June 2001 supplementing the provisions of Article 26 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/51/EC of 28 June 2001 supplementing the provisions of Article 26 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

| 2. | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/22

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-79/05 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 - Substances that deplete the ozone layer - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2005/C 217/42)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-79/05: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by G. Fiengo) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 17 February 2005 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to take, within the prescribed period, all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of controlled substances as regards, in particular, the obligation to check annually fixed equipment with a refrigerating fluid charge of more than 3 kg for leakages, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to take, within the prescribed period, all precautionary measures practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of controlled substances as regards, in particular, the obligation to check annually fixed equipment with a refrigerating fluid charge of more than 3 kg for leakages, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 93 of 16.04.2005.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/22

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 21 June 2005

in Joined Cases C-162/03, C-185/03, C-44/04, C-45/04, C-223/04, C-224/04, C-271/04 and C-272/04: References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano in Azienda Agricola Balconi Andrea (ex Guido) v Regione Lombardia and Others, and in Azienda Agricola Schnabl Rosa and Others v Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura and Others (1)

(Milk and milk products - Additional levy on milk - Regulations (EEC) No 856/84 and No 3950/92 - Reference quantity - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Administrative penalties - Conditions)

(2005/C 217/43)

Language of the case: Italian

In Joined Cases C-162/03, C-185/03, C-44/04, C-45/04, C-223/04, C-224/04, C-271/04 and C-272/04: references for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) (C-162/03), made by decision of 21 February 2003, received at the Court on 7 April 2003, from the Tribunale di Tolmezzo (Italy) (C-185/03, C-271/04 and C-272/04), made by decisions of 16 April 2003 and 16 June 2004, received at the Court on 5 May 2003 and 25 June 2004 respectively, and from the Tribunale di Gorizia (Italy) (C-44/04, C-45/04, C-223/04 and C-224/04), made by decisions of 18 December 2003 and 7 April 2004, received at the Court on 4 February 2004 and 28 May 2004 respectively, in the proceedings between Azienda Agricola Balconi Andrea (ex Guido) (C-162/03) against Regione Lombardia, Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), and in the proceedings between Azienda Agricola Schnabl Rosa (C-185/03), Azienda Agricola Bogar Roberto e Andrea (C-44/04 and C-224/04), Azienda Agricola Bressan Aldo (C-45/04 and C-223/04), Azienda Agricola Di Doi Elena (C-271/04) and Azienda Agricola Piemonte Franco (C-272/04) against Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) and Cospalat FVG — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), M. Ilešič, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 21 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

The additional levy established in respect of the milk and milk products sector by Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products, as amended by Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984, and by Articles 1 to 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, is not an administrative penalty within the meaning of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests.

---

(1)  OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003

OJ C 146 of 21.06.2003

OJ C 85 of 03.04.2004

OJ C 228 of 11.09.2004

OJ C 201 of 07.08.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/23

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-52/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht in Personalrat der Feuerwehr Hamburg v Leiter der Feuerwehr Hamburg (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Social policy - Protection of workers' health and safety - Directives 89/391/EEC and 93/104/EC - Scope - Operational crews of a public fire service - Inclusion - Conditions)

(2005/C 217/44)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-52/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany), made by decision of 17 December 2003, received at the Court on 10 February 2004, in the proceedings between Personalrat der Feuerwehr Hamburg and Leiter der Feuerwehr Hamburg — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C. W. A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), J. Makarczyk and J. Klučka, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 14 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

Article 2 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and Article 1(3) of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that:

| — | the activities carried out by the operational crews of a public fire service such as that at issue in the main proceedings normally fall within the scope of the directives referred to so that, in principle, Article 6(2) of Directive 93/104 precludes exceeding the 48 hours' ceiling prescribed as the maximum weekly working time, including guard duty; |
| --- | --- |

—

the activities carried out by the operational crews of a public fire service such as that at issue in the main proceedings normally fall within the scope of the directives referred to so that, in principle, Article 6(2) of Directive 93/104 precludes exceeding the 48 hours' ceiling prescribed as the maximum weekly working time, including guard duty;

| — | it is nevertheless possible for such ceiling to be exceeded in exceptional circumstances of such gravity and scale that the aim of ensuring the proper functioning of services essential for the protection of public interests, such as public order, health and safety, must temporarily prevail over the aim of guaranteeing the health and safety of workers assigned to intervention and rescue teams. Even in such exceptional situations, however, the aims of Directive 89/391 must be upheld as far as possible. |
| --- | --- |

—

it is nevertheless possible for such ceiling to be exceeded in exceptional circumstances of such gravity and scale that the aim of ensuring the proper functioning of services essential for the protection of public interests, such as public order, health and safety, must temporarily prevail over the aim of guaranteeing the health and safety of workers assigned to intervention and rescue teams. Even in such exceptional situations, however, the aims of Directive 89/391 must be upheld as far as possible.

---

(1)  OJ C 94 of 17.04.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/23

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 12 April 2005

in Case C-80/04 P DLD Trading Co. v Council of the European Union (1)

(Appeal - Non-contractual liability - Causal link between the conduct complained of and the alleged damage - No such link - Subject-matter of the dispute - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2005/C 217/45)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-80/04 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged on 18 February 2004 by DLD Trading Co., established in Brno (Czech Republic) (lawyers: J. Hintermayr, F. Haunschmidt, G. Minichmayr, P. Burgstaller and G. Tusek) the other parties to the proceedings being Council of the European Union (Agents: M.-C Giorgi Fort, A.-M. Colaert and J.-P. Hix) supported by Republic of Austria (Agents: C. Pesendorfer, W. Okresek and H. Dossi), by Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Schieferer) and by Republic of Finland (Agents: T. Pynnä and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, R. Schingten (Rapporteur) and P. Kūris, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 12 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | DLD Trading Co. shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

DLD Trading Co. shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 94, 17.04.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/24

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 14 June 2005

in Case C-358/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Vicenza in Caseificio Valdagnese Srl v Regione Veneto (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 217/46)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-358/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale di Vicenza (Italy), made by decision of 2 August 2004, received at the Court on 17 August 2004, in the proceedings between Caseificio Valdagnese Srl and Regione Veneto — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 14 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

The reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Tribunale di Vicenza by decision of 2 August 2004 is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 273, 06.11.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/24

---

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-420/04 P: Georgios Gouvras v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Appeal - Officials - Posting - Secondment in the interests of the service - Retrospective change of place of employment and of the financial entitlements relating to it - Recovery of sum not due)

(2005/C 217/47)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-420/04 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged on 29 September 2004 by Georgios Gouvras, an official of the Commission of the European Communities (lawyer: J.-N. Louis), the other party to the proceedings being the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 14 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Gouvras shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Gouvras shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 284 of 20.11.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/24

---

Appeal brought on 23 July 2004 (14 July 2004 by fax) by Raffaele Dipace against the order made on 1 April 2004 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-106/04 between Raffaele Dipace and the Italian Republic

(Case C-315/04 P)

(2005/C 217/48)

Language of the case: Italian

An appeal against the order made on 1 April 2004 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-106/04 between Raffaele Dipace and the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July 2004 (14 July 2004 by fax) by Raffaele Dipace.

By order of 3 March 2005, the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Dipace to bear his own costs.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that court of 22 April 2005 in case of Twoh International BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

(Case C-184/05)

(2005/C 217/49)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) of 22 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 25 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Twoh International BV and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst on the following question:

Is Article 28c A (a) of the Sixth Directive (1) — in conjunction with the mutual assistance directive (2) and the Regulation (3) — to be interpreted as meaning that, if no relevant information has been provided voluntarily by the Member State of arrival, the Member State of the dispatch or transport of the goods must request the alleged Member State of arrival of those goods to provide information and must take the results of that request into account when examining the evidence of the dispatch or transport of the goods?

---

(1)  Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (OJ L 145, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 (OJ L 336, p. 15), as amended by Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ L 76, p. 1).

(3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 of 27 January 1992 (OJ L 24, p. 1).

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/25

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal, Brussels by order of that court of 30 May 2005 in BVBA Management Training en Consultancy v Benelux-Merkenbureau

(Case C-239/05)

(2005/C 217/50)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of The Court of Appeal, Brussels of 30 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 3 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between BVBA Management Training en Consultancy and Benelux-Merkenbureau on the following questions:

| 1. | Is the trade mark authority required, after its examination of all relevant facts and circumstances concerning an absolute ground of refusal, to state in its provisional and in its definitive decision on the application its conclusion in regard to each of the goods and services separately in respect of which trade mark protection is sought? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the trade mark authority required, after its examination of all relevant facts and circumstances concerning an absolute ground of refusal, to state in its provisional and in its definitive decision on the application its conclusion in regard to each of the goods and services separately in respect of which trade mark protection is sought?

| 2. | May the relevant facts and circumstances to be taken into account by the adjudicating authority in the event of an appeal against the decision of the trade mark authority be different as a result of a lapse of time between the two dates on which the decisions are made or must the adjudicating authority only take account of such facts and circumstances as were available at the moment when the trade mark authority made its decision? |
| --- | --- |

2.

May the relevant facts and circumstances to be taken into account by the adjudicating authority in the event of an appeal against the decision of the trade mark authority be different as a result of a lapse of time between the two dates on which the decisions are made or must the adjudicating authority only take account of such facts and circumstances as were available at the moment when the trade mark authority made its decision?

| 3. | Does the interpretation by the Court of Justice in the Postkantoor
   (1) judgment preclude national legislation in regard to the competence of the adjudicating authority from being construed as meaning that that authority is prevented from taking account of any alteration in the relevant facts and circumstances or from ruling on the distinctive character of the mark for each of the goods and services in themselves? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does the interpretation by the Court of Justice in the Postkantoor
   (1) judgment preclude national legislation in regard to the competence of the adjudicating authority from being construed as meaning that that authority is prevented from taking account of any alteration in the relevant facts and circumstances or from ruling on the distinctive character of the mark for each of the goods and services in themselves?

---

(1)  Case C-363/99, Koninklijke KPN Nederland, dated 12.02.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/26

---

Action brought on 9 June 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-247/05)

(2005/C 217/51)

Language of the case: Dutch

An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 June 2005 by Commission of the European Communities, represented by Minas Konstantinidis and Michel Van Beck, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare that, by incorrectly transposing Council Directive 96/61/EC (1) of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(6) and (11), 5(1), 9(3) to (6), the second indent to Article 13(2), the second indent to Article 14 and annexes III and IV to the abovementioned directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that, by incorrectly transposing Council Directive 96/61/EC (1) of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(6) and (11), 5(1), 9(3) to (6), the second indent to Article 13(2), the second indent to Article 14 and annexes III and IV to the abovementioned directive;

| — | Order the Netherlands to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas and main arguments:

The Netherlands Government adopted in due time the requisite legislative and administrative measures in order to comply with the directive and the legislative proposal in course of preparation serves merely to clarify and elucidate the various headings of the directive.

The Commission further points out that the way in which Member States are bound to transpose directives in their national legal systems has on numerous occasions been expounded by the Court. For example, in the judgment in Case C-361/88 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-2567, the Court used the following formulation:

‘...The transposition of a directive into domestic law does not necessarily require that its provisions be incorporated formally and verbatim in express, specific legislation; a general legal context may, depending on the content of the directive, be adequate for the purpose provided that it does indeed guarantee the full application of the directive in a sufficiently clear and precise manner so that, where the directive is intended to create rights for individuals, the persons concerned can ascertain the full extent of their rights and, where appropriate, rely on them before the national courts.’

In the present case the Commission is of the view that transposition of the directive into the Netherlands legal system cannot in several respects be regarded as ‘adequate’.

---

(1)  OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26.

1

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/26

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht by order of that court of 14 April 2005 in Turbon International GmbH — as universal successor in title to Kores Nordic Deutschland GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz — Zoll- und Verbrauchsteuerabteilung

(Case C-250/05)

(2005/C 217/52)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hessisches Finanzgericht of 14 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 15 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Turbon International GmbH — as universal successor in title to Kores Nordic Deutschland GmbH and Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz — Zoll- und Verbrauchsteuerabteilung — on the following question:

In the judgment of 7 February 2002 in Case C-276/00 (1) it was held that Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (2) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 (3) of 9 September 1996, had to be interpreted as meaning that an ink-cartridge without integrated print head, consisting of plastic casing, foam, a metal screen, seals, tape seal, labels, ink and packing material, which, as regards both the cartridge and the ink, could only be used in a printer with the same characteristics as Epson Stylus Colour ink-jet printers, was to be classified under subheading 3215 90 80 of the Combined Nomenclature.

Contrary to that ruling, should not the ink-cartridge described above in fact be classified as a part or accessory of a printer under CN heading 8473 because the mechanical and electronic functioning of the printer is dependent upon the presence of a cartridge of that kind?

---

(1)  [2002] ECR I-1389.

(2)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

(3)  OJ 1996 L 238, p. 1.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/27

---

Action brought on 17 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

(Case C-257/05)

(2005/C 217/53)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa and Wolfgang Bogensberger, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by requiring in Paragraph 21(4) of the Kesselgesetz (Law on boilers) (1) that only applicants having a head office in Austria may be approved as a boiler inspection body, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by requiring in Paragraph 21(4) of the Kesselgesetz (Law on boilers) (1) that only applicants having a head office in Austria may be approved as a boiler inspection body, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

| 2. | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with Article 49 EC, limitations on the freedom to provide services, within the Community, of Member State nationals who are established in a different Member State from that of the recipient of the services are prohibited.

Paragraph 21 of the Republic of Austria's Kesselgesetz governs the requirements for the issue of a licence to operate as a boiler inspection body. Under Paragraph 21(4), only those applicants established in Austria may be licensed as boiler inspection bodies. An inspection body for pressurised equipment established in another Member State, wishing to offer its services in Austria, is therefore faced with the necessity first to establish a branch in Austria.

That legislation constitutes a limitation on the freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 49 EC. It also follows from the Court's case-law that a requirement of establishment runs directly contrary to the freedom to provide services, since it makes the provision of services through undertakings established in another Member State impossible.

The grounds stated by the Republic of Austria — such as, for example, public safety or the protection of workers and consumers — are not such as to justify that limitation on the freedom to provide services. A limitation on the freedom to provide services may — according to the Court's case-law — be justified only to the extent that public interest is not already protected by laws to which the service provider is subject in the Member State where it is established. The requirement of establishment is disproportionate for the guarantee of quality of supervision with regard to the interests which it is supposed to protect, since public safety and the protection of workers and consumers may already be ensured by the system laid down in the Kesselgesetz for the authorising and supervision of inspection bodies, without the necessity of an establishment within the Member State.

---

(1)  BGBl. No 211/1992.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/27

---

Action brought on 23 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-263/05)

(2005/C 217/54)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Kontantinidis and L. Cimaglia, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by having adopted and maintained in force a provision (Article 14 of Decree-Law No 138 of 8 July 2002, converted into Law No 178 of 8 August 2002) that provides for the exclusion from the ambit of Decree-Law No 22/97, which transposed into Italian national law Council Directive 91/156/EEC (1) of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC (2) on waste, substances or objects intended for operations for the disposal or recovery of waste not expressly listed in Annexes B or C to Legislative Decree No 22/97, and also goods, substances or residual production materials which the holder intends or is required to discard, when they may be and are reused in a production or consumption cycle, on condition that they have undergone no prior treatment and that they do not harm the environment or, if when they have undergone prior treatment, the latter is not one of the recovery operations listed in Annex C to Legislative Decree No 22/97, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by having adopted and maintained in force a provision (Article 14 of Decree-Law No 138 of 8 July 2002, converted into Law No 178 of 8 August 2002) that provides for the exclusion from the ambit of Decree-Law No 22/97, which transposed into Italian national law Council Directive 91/156/EEC (1) of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC (2) on waste, substances or objects intended for operations for the disposal or recovery of waste not expressly listed in Annexes B or C to Legislative Decree No 22/97, and also goods, substances or residual production materials which the holder intends or is required to discard, when they may be and are reused in a production or consumption cycle, on condition that they have undergone no prior treatment and that they do not harm the environment or, if when they have undergone prior treatment, the latter is not one of the recovery operations listed in Annex C to Legislative Decree No 22/97, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended by Directive 91/156/EC;

| 2. | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The references made in Article 14(1)(a) and (b) of Law No 178/2002 to ‘disposal and recovery activities’ and to ‘disposal and recovery operations’ respectively is followed in both cases by the addition of ‘in accordance with Annexes B and C to Legislative Decree No 22’.

Such an addition, which does not however appear in the text of subparagraph (c) of that article, would seem to draw a distinction between, on the one hand, disposal or recovery operations in general and, on the other, those specifically referred to in Annexes B and C to Legislative Decree No 22/97.

In the light of such a distinction, it is quite apparent from a reading of Article 6(1)(a) of Legislative Decree No 22/97 in conjunction with Article 14(a) and (b) of Law No 178/2002 that the effect of the latter provision is to circumscribe the scope of the concept of waste, which might not include all the materials, substances or goods falling within the categories in Annex A that the holder sends for, or subjects to, any disposal or recovery operation or intends to, but might rather include only those in respect of which disposal or recovery operations among those expressly listed in Annexes B and C to Legislative Decree No 22/97 have been carried out or are contemplated.

In the system defined by the Italian legislature, in which the concept of waste is made to depend incontrovertibly on those conditions, all those materials, substances or goods referred to in annex A that the holder sends for, or subjects to, or intends to send for or subject to, disposal operations not listed in Annex B to Legislative Decree No 22/97 or recovery operations not listed in Annex C thereto are therefore excluded from classification as waste, and as a result from being subject to the rules on the management of waste.

The Commission takes the view that that exclusion constitutes an improper restriction of the concept of waste and therefore of the ambit of the Italian legislation on the management of waste. As a matter of fact, the effect of the interpretation put forward by the Italian legislature is to limit the application of the provisions of the directive to those cases alone which are identified in the Italian legislation, excluding from its ambit other cases, not deductively foreseeable, which could on the contrary be subject to it and in relation to which a broad interpretation of the concept of waste, such as that affirmed in paragraph 36 of the judgment in Palin Granit, is essential. The adoption of such a position by the Italian legislature runs counter to the provisions of the directive, from which a provision of national law may not derogate.

---

(1)  OJ L 78 of 26/03/1991, p.32

(2)  OJ L 194 of 25 July 1975, p. 39

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/28

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) by order of that court of 21 June 2005 in José Perez Naranjo v Caisse régionale d'assurance maladie (CRAM) Nord-Picardie

(Case C-265/05)

(2005/C 217/55)

Language of the case: French

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Cour de cassation (France) of 21 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 27 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between José Perez Naranjo and Caisse régionale d'assurance maladie (CRAM) Nord-Picardie on the following question:

Is Community law to be interpreted as meaning that the supplementary allowance at issue, listed in Annex IIa to Regulation 1408/71, is of a special and non-contributory character, thereby excluding, pursuant to Articles 10a and 95b of Regulation 1408/71 (1), its award to a non-resident who did not satisfy the age condition on 1 June 1992, or as meaning that it constitutes a social security benefit and must therefore, pursuant to Article 19(1) of that regulation, be provided to the person concerned who satisfies the conditions for its award, irrespective of the Member State in which that person is resident?

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1974 L 149, p. 2)

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/29

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos by decision of that court of 9 June 2005 in Athinaiki Khartopiia A.E. v L. Panagiotidis and Others

(Case C-270/05)

(2005/C 217/56)

Language of the case: Greek

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Arios Pagos (Supreme Court of Cassation) of 9 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 1 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Athinaiki Khartopiia A.E. and L. Panagiotidis and Others on the following question:

Does the operating unit whose staff were made collectively redundant by the employer in derogation from the procedures for informing and consulting with the workers' representatives which are envisaged in Article 1(2)(d) of Directive 75/129, Article 2(4) of Directive 92/56 and Article 4(4) of Directive 98/59 fall within the meaning of the Community term ‘establishment’, for the purpose of applying the Council directives referred to in the grounds of this decision and Law 1387/1983 concerning ‘control of collective redundancies and other provisions’?

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/29

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep, Antwerp by judgment of that court of 30 June 2005 in 1. ..., 2. ... and 3. Bowens, Werner Constant Maria

(Case C-272/05)

(2005/C 217/57)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Beroep, Antwerp of 30 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 5 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between 1. ..., 2. ... and 3. Bowens, Werner Constant Maria on the following question:

| 1. | ‘Must Article 54 of the Convention of 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement, read in conjunction with Article 71 thereof, be construed as meaning that offences of possession for the purposes of export and import in respect of the same narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and which are prosecuted as exports and imports respectively in different countries which have signed the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, are deemed to be the “same acts”, as referred to in Article 54 of that Convention?’ |
| --- | --- |

1.

‘Must Article 54 of the Convention of 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement, read in conjunction with Article 71 thereof, be construed as meaning that offences of possession for the purposes of export and import in respect of the same narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and which are prosecuted as exports and imports respectively in different countries which have signed the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, are deemed to be the “same acts”, as referred to in Article 54 of that Convention?’

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/29

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 24 May 2005 in The Wellcome Foundation Ltd. v Paranova Pharmazeutika Handels GmbH

(Case C-276/05)

(2005/C 217/58)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) of 24 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 6 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between The Wellcome Foundation Ltd. and Paranova Pharmazeutika Handels GmbH on the following questions:

| 1. | a. | Are Article 7 of the Trade Marks Directive [First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks] (1) and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities which has been pronounced on it to be interpreted as meaning that proof that reliance on the trade mark would contribute to an artificial partitioning of the market must be furnished not only as regards the repackaging in itself, but also as regards the presentation of the new packaging? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

a.

Are Article 7 of the Trade Marks Directive [First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks] (1) and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities which has been pronounced on it to be interpreted as meaning that proof that reliance on the trade mark would contribute to an artificial partitioning of the market must be furnished not only as regards the repackaging in itself, but also as regards the presentation of the new packaging?

If the answer to this question is in the negative:

| b. | Is the presentation of the new packaging to be measured against the principle of minimum intervention or (only) against whether it is such as to damage the reputation of the trade mark and its proprietor? |
| --- | --- |

b.

Is the presentation of the new packaging to be measured against the principle of minimum intervention or (only) against whether it is such as to damage the reputation of the trade mark and its proprietor?

| 2. | Are Article 7 of the Trade Marks Directive and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities which has been pronounced on it to be interpreted as meaning that the parallel importer fulfils his duty of notification only if he informs the proprietor of the trade mark also of the state of export and the precise reasons for the repackaging? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are Article 7 of the Trade Marks Directive and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities which has been pronounced on it to be interpreted as meaning that the parallel importer fulfils his duty of notification only if he informs the proprietor of the trade mark also of the state of export and the precise reasons for the repackaging?

---

(1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/30

---

Appeal brought on 13 July 2005 (fax: 12 July 2005) by Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG, against the judgment delivered on 21 April 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-28/03 between Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG, and the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-282/05 P)

(2005/C 217/59)

Language of the case: German

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 21 April 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-28/03 between Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG, and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 July 2005 (fax: 12 July 2005) by Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG, represented by Peter Niggemann and Frederik Wiemer, Rechtsanwälte, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Feldmühleplatz 1, D-40545 Düsseldorf.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 21 April 2005 in Case T-28/03 between Holcim (Deutschland) AG and the European Commission; (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 21 April 2005 in Case T-28/03 between Holcim (Deutschland) AG and the European Commission; (1)

| 2. | Order the defendant and respondent to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 139 002,21 together with interest at an overall rate of 5,75 % for the period from 15 April 2000 until payment has been made in full; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order the defendant and respondent to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 139 002,21 together with interest at an overall rate of 5,75 % for the period from 15 April 2000 until payment has been made in full;

| 3. | In the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a fresh decision, having regard to the interpretation of the law given by the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a fresh decision, having regard to the interpretation of the law given by the Court of Justice;

| 4. | Order the defendant and respondent to pay all the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Order the defendant and respondent to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant relies on three grounds of appeal:

| 1. | The Court of First Instance has infringed Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice by ruling that the reimbursement claim was time-barred in so far as the claims arose before 31 January 1998. Contrary to the view of that Court, the limitation period did not begin to run on provision of the guarantees, but only when the Cement judgment was given on 15 March 2000. Only after the annulment of the Cement decision could the defendant's obligation to compensate have been successfully relied on. In particular, the amount of the loss was not sufficiently clear when the guarantees were provided, since it was not foreseeable how long the annulment proceedings would last. In addition, it was not the case that a large number of daily, successive losses arose as a result of the provision of guarantees; on the contrary the loss was a single and uniform one. In the alternative, it is submitted that under the second sentence of Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice the limitation period was interrupted by the lodging of annulment proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Court of First Instance has infringed Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice by ruling that the reimbursement claim was time-barred in so far as the claims arose before 31 January 1998. Contrary to the view of that Court, the limitation period did not begin to run on provision of the guarantees, but only when the Cement judgment was given on 15 March 2000. Only after the annulment of the Cement decision could the defendant's obligation to compensate have been successfully relied on. In particular, the amount of the loss was not sufficiently clear when the guarantees were provided, since it was not foreseeable how long the annulment proceedings would last. In addition, it was not the case that a large number of daily, successive losses arose as a result of the provision of guarantees; on the contrary the loss was a single and uniform one. In the alternative, it is submitted that under the second sentence of Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice the limitation period was interrupted by the lodging of annulment proceedings.

| 2. | The Court of First Instance was incorrect to examine and reject the existence of a ‘sufficiently serious breach’ under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC. First, that additional condition for a claim to reimbursement was developed by case-law only in respect of Community legislative measures and not in respect of administrative acts — such as fining decisions issued pursuant to competition rules. Even if the criterion of a 'sufficiently serious breach' were also to apply in this case, there would however be such an infringement, since the defendant had no discretion when issuing the unlawful Cement decision; the complexity of the case can then no longer matter. However, even if the complexity were to be examined in addition, the case could not be qualified as complex, at least to the extent that the applicant or its legal predecessors were affected. With respect to them, the Cement proceeding merely dealt with the examination of a small amount of evidence and the simple question whether there was a lawful export cartel. The joining of the proceedings in respect of several other undertakings into a single proceeding cannot adversely affect the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Court of First Instance was incorrect to examine and reject the existence of a ‘sufficiently serious breach’ under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC. First, that additional condition for a claim to reimbursement was developed by case-law only in respect of Community legislative measures and not in respect of administrative acts — such as fining decisions issued pursuant to competition rules. Even if the criterion of a 'sufficiently serious breach' were also to apply in this case, there would however be such an infringement, since the defendant had no discretion when issuing the unlawful Cement decision; the complexity of the case can then no longer matter. However, even if the complexity were to be examined in addition, the case could not be qualified as complex, at least to the extent that the applicant or its legal predecessors were affected. With respect to them, the Cement proceeding merely dealt with the examination of a small amount of evidence and the simple question whether there was a lawful export cartel. The joining of the proceedings in respect of several other undertakings into a single proceeding cannot adversely affect the applicant.

| 3. | The Court of First Instance did not correctly assess the question of the causal link between the unlawfulness and the loss. Had the defendant not imposed the unlawful fining decision on the applicant, the latter would not have incurred any losses by way of guarantee costs. The provision of bank guarantees did not break the causal link. Both forms of security — namely provisional payment of the amount of the fine and provision of guarantees — should be regarded in the same manner in terms of their legal consequences. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Court of First Instance did not correctly assess the question of the causal link between the unlawfulness and the loss. Had the defendant not imposed the unlawful fining decision on the applicant, the latter would not have incurred any losses by way of guarantee costs. The provision of bank guarantees did not break the causal link. Both forms of security — namely provisional payment of the amount of the fine and provision of guarantees — should be regarded in the same manner in terms of their legal consequences.

---

(1)  OJ C 155 of 25.6.2005, p. 14.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/31

---

Action brought on 20 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-294/05)

(2005/C 217/60)

Language of the case: Swedish

An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Lena Ström van Lier and Günter Wilms, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing, from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002 inclusive, to establish and credit its own resources in connection with the import of war material and goods for civilian or military use and by failing to pay late payment interest thereon, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources, as valid before 31 May 2000, and thereafter under Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing, from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002 inclusive, to establish and credit its own resources in connection with the import of war material and goods for civilian or military use and by failing to pay late payment interest thereon, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources, as valid before 31 May 2000, and thereafter under Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources

| 2. | order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

From 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002 inclusive, the Kingdom of Sweden failed to establish and credit its own resources in connection with the import of war materials and goods for civilian or military use, also by failing to pay late payment interest thereon. The Swedish Government contends that Article 296(1)(b) EC gives Member States the right unilaterally to grant exemption from duty for imports of war material and of goods with dual usage (civilian and military) on grounds of defence economics, to protect military secrecy and to comply with international agreements made regarding the guarantee of military security. The Commission submits that Member States do not have the right, by reference to Article 296(1)(b) EC, to withdraw their own resources from the Community budget. In all the circumstances, Member States have the burden of proving that the exemption from duty of war material and of goods with dual usage and the consequent failure to establish and credit their own resources is a necessary measure for the protection of their essential security interests. The Commission takes the view that the Kingdom of Sweden has not satisfied that burden of proof.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/31

---

Removal from the register of Case C-156/02 (1)

(2005/C 217/61)

(Language of the case: German)

By order of 6 June 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-156/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling Bundessozialgericht): Maria Purschke v Landesversicherungsanstalt Oberbayern.

---

(1)  OJ C 180 of 27.07.2002.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/31

---

Removal from the register of Case C-225/03 (1)

(2005/C 217/62)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 7 July 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-225/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 171 of 19.07.2003.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/31

---

Removal from the register of Case C-527/03 (1)

(2005/C 217/63)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 8 June 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-527/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.

---

(1)  OJ C 59 of 6.03.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/32

---

Removal from the register of Case C-81/04 (1)

(2005/C 217/64)

(Language of the case: German)

By order of 8 June 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-81/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling Arbeitsgericht Berlin): Veronika Richert v VK GmbH Service Gesellschaft für Vermögenszuordnung und Kommunalisierung mbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/32

---

Removal from the register of Case C-256/04 (1)

(2005/C 217/65)

(Language of the case: Greek)

By order of 16 June 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-256/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 239 of 25.09.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/32

---

Removal from the register of Case C-319/04 (1)

(2005/C 217/66)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 7 July 2005, the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-319/04 Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 228 of 11.09.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/32

---

Removal from the register of Case C-337/04 (1)

(2005/C 217/67)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 27 June 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-337/04 Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 239 of 25.09.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/32

---

Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-362/04, C-363/04, C-364/04 and C-365/04 (1)

(2005/C 217/68)

(Language of the case: Greek)

By order of 21 June 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases C-362/04, C-363/04, C-364/04 and C-365/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling Symvoulio tis Epikrateias): Michaniki A.E., Tholos A.E. v Ypourgos Politismou, Ypourgos Perivallontos, Chorotaxias and Dimosion Ergon.

---

(1)  OJ C 273 of 06.11.2004.

OJ C 284 of 20.11.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/32

---

Removal from the register of Case C-370/04 (1)

(2005/C 217/69)

(Language of the case: German)

By order of 6 June 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-370/04: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.

---

(1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/33

---

Removal from the register of Case C-387/04 (1)

(2005/C 217/70)

(Language of the case: German)

By order of 6 June 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-387/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling Amtsgericht Dresden): Volker Donath.

---

(1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/33

---

Removal from the register of Case C-396/04 (1)

(2005/C 217/71)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

By order of 12 May 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-396/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland.

---

(1)  OJ C 273 6.11.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/33

---

Removal from the register of Case C-424/04 (1)

(2005/C 217/72)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 17 May 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-424/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 300 of 4.12.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/33

---

Removal from the register of Case C-497/04 (1)

(2005/C 217/73)

(Language of the case: Greek)

By order of 13 June 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-497/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 31 of 5.02.2005.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/33

---

Removal from the register of Case C-498/04 (1)

(2005/C 217/74)

(Language of the case: Greek)

By order of 13 June 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-498/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 31 of 5.02.2005.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/33

---

Removal from the register of Case C-511/04 (1)

(2005/C 217/75)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

By order of 4 May 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-511/04: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 45 of 19.02.2005.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/34

---

Removal from the register of Case C-515/04 (1)

(2005/C 217/76)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 11 July 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-515/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.

---

(1)  OJ C 31 of 05.02.2005.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/34

---

Removal from the register of Case C-56/05 (1)

(2005/C 217/77)

(Language of the case: Greek)

By order of 25 May 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-56/05: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 93 of 16.04.2005.

---

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/35

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 5 July 2005

in Case T-387/02 Dorte Schmidt-Brown v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Officials - Action for annulment - Accusations against an official - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Rejection of request for financial assistance)

(2005/C 217/78)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-387/02: Dorte Schmidt-Brown, former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Wellen (Germany), represented by A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 26 April 2002 rejecting the applicant's request seeking financial assistance from the Commission in an action for defamation brought by the applicant against a company before the High Court of Justice (England & Wales) — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, I. Labucka and V. Trstenjak, Judges; I. Natsinas, Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/35

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 28 June 2005

in Case T-158/03 Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Directive 91/414/EEC - Plant protection products - Active substances - Metalaxyl - Authorisation procedure - Summary dossier and complete dossier - Time-limits - Principle of proportionality - Misuse of powers)

(2005/C 217/79)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case T-158/03: Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA, established in Mollet del Vallés (Spain), represented initially by C. Fernández Vicién, J. Sabater Marotias and P. González-Espejo, and subsequently by C. Fernández Vicién, J. Sabater Marotias and I. Moreno Tapia Rivas, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: S. Pardo Quintillán and B. Doherty, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/308/EC of 2 May 2003 concerning the non-inclusion of metalaxyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant-protection products containing this active substance (OJ 2003 L 113, p. 8) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 June 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/36

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 30 June 2005

in Case T-190/03: Sanni Olesen v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Officials - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Work done for another State or for an international organisation - Definition of State - Main occupation)

(2005/C 217/80)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-190/03: Sanni Olesen, official of the Commission of the European Communities, resident in Brussels (Belgium), represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of the European Communities, (Agents: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacio, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for first, annulment of the Commission's Decision of 19 April 2002 refusing the applicant the expatriation allowance laid down in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, and second, payment of that allowance as from the date on which she assumed her duties, increased by default interest — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, M.E. Martins Ribeiro and K. Jürimäe, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 June 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/36

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 28 June 2005

in Case T-301/03 Canali Ireland Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark - Figurative mark CANAL JEAN CO. NEW YORK - Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark CANALI - Likelihood of confusion)

(2005/C 217/81)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-301/03: Canali Ireland Ltd, established in Dublin (Ireland), represented by C. Gielen and O. Schmutzer, lawyers, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. Apostolidis and S. Laitinen), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance, being Canal Jean Co. Inc., established in New York (United States), represented by M. Cover, Solicitor — action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2003 (Case R 103/2002-2) relating to Opposition Proceedings No 78859 between Canali SpA and Canal Jean Co. Inc. — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J. D. Cooke, President, I. Labucka and V. Trstenjak, Judges; B. Pastor, Assistant Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 June 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/37

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 30 June 2005

in Case T-347/03 Eugénio Branco, Lda v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(European Social Fund - Reduction of financial assistance - Subcontracting - Acquired rights - Reasonable time)

(2005/C 217/82)

Language of the case: Portuguese

In Case T-347/03: Eugénio Branco, Lda, established in Lisbon (Portugal), represented by B. Belchior, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially A. Alves Vieira and A. Weimar and subsequently P. Andrade and A. Weimar, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2002) 3455 of 23 October 2002 reducing financial assistance from the European Social Fund, in Case No 870302 P3 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Šváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 June 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 10.01.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/37

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 5 July 2005

in Case T-370/03 Jacques Wunenburger v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Officials - Post of Director of the Commission EuropeAid Co-operation Office - Vacancy notice - Rejection of candidature - Action for annulment - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Statement of reasons - Manifest error of assessment)

(2005/C 217/83)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-370/03: Jacques Wunenburger, official of the Commission of the European Communities, resident in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by É. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and G. Berscheid with an address for service in Luxembourg) — request for annulment of, firstly, the Commission's decision not to appoint the applicant to the post of Director in the Directorate ‘Africa, Caribbean, Pacific’ of the EuropeAid Co-operation Office and, secondly, the decision to appoint another person to that post — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J. D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and I. Labucka, Judges; I. Natsinas, Principal Administrator for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2004

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/38

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 7 July 2005

in Case T-385/03 Miles Handelsgesellschaft International mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘Biker Miles’ - Earlier Community word mark MILES - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2005/C 217/84)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-385/03: Miles Handelsgesellschaft International mbH, established in Norderstedt (Germany), represented by F. Dettmann and A. Deutsch, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: T. Eichenberg and G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of Appeal, intervener before the Court of First Instance, being Biker Miles Motorrad Handels- und Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH, established in Berlin (Germany), represented by G. Malchartzeck, lawyer — action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2003 (Case R 174/2002-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Biker Miles Motorrad Handels- und Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH and Miles Handelsgesellschaft International mbH — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Lindh and V. Vadapalas, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2003 (Case R 174/2002-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2003 (Case R 174/2002-2);

| 2. | Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant;

| 3. | Orders the intervener to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 7.2.2004

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/38

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 30 June 2005

in Case T-439/03 Ulrike Eppe v the European Parliament (1)

(Open competition - Non-admission to tests - Necessary professional experience)

(2005/C 217/85)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-439/03: Ulrike Eppe, residing in Hanover (Germany), represented by W. Klöber, lawyer, against the European Parliament (Agents: J. de Wachter and N. Lorenz with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for, firstly, the annulment of the decisions of the selection board in competition EUR/A/167/02 of 24 February and 28 April 2003 and, secondly, the decision of the Appointing Authority of 17 September 2003 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Šváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 June 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs, including those of the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs, including those of the interlocutory proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C of 17.4.2004

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/39

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 5 July 2005

in Case T-9/04 Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Officials - Social security benefits - Accident - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Admissibility - Statement of reasons)

(2005/C 217/86)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-9/04: Luigi Marcuccio, official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Tricase (Italy), represented by M. Di Stefano and A. Distante, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application primarily for annulment of the Commission's implied decision rejecting the application submitted by the applicant on 3 December 2002 with a view to securing acknowledgment of an accident under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, I. Labucka and V. Trstenjak, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Adminstrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Annuls the Commission's decision rejecting the application submitted by the applicant on 3 December 2002 with a view to securing acknowledgment of an accident under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the Commission's decision rejecting the application submitted by the applicant on 3 December 2002 with a view to securing acknowledgment of an accident under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities.

| 2. | Dismisses the claims for the Court to order measures of inquiry. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the claims for the Court to order measures of inquiry.

| 3. | Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

| 4. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 3.4.2004

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/39

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 6 July 2005

in Case T-148/04 TQ3 Travel Solutions Belgium SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Provision of travel agency services for travel undertaken by officials and agents of the institutions)

(2005/C 217/87)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-148/04: TQ3 Travel Solutions Belgium SA, established in Mechelen (Belgium), initially represented by R. Ergec and K. Möric, and then by B. Lissoir, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Parpala and E. Manhaeve, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by Wagon-Lits Travel SA, established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by F. Herbert and H. Van Peer, lawyers, and D. Harrison, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg — application both for annulment of the Commission's decisions not to award to the applicant lot No 1 of the contract covered by Notice No 2003/S 143 129409 for the provision of travel agency services but to award that lot to another undertaking and also for damages to compensate for the loss suffered by the applicant following the rejection of its tender — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 July 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Commission and the intervener, including those of the proceedings on the application for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Commission and the intervener, including those of the proceedings on the application for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 10.7.2004

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/40

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 20 June 2005

in Case T-361/02 Deutsche Bahn AG v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(State aid - Competitor's complaint - Action for failure to act - Position taken - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2005/C 217/88)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-361/02: Deutsche Bahn AG, established in Berlin (Germany), represented by M. Schütte, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Bucci, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by the Council of the European Union (Agents: A.-M. Colaert and F. Florindo Gijón) — action for failure to act, seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt a decision on the applicant's complaint of 5 July 2002 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, J.D. Cook, R. García-Valdecasas, I. Labucka and V. Trstenjak, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 20 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicant, in addition to bearing its own costs, shall pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant, in addition to bearing its own costs, shall pay those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/40

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 27 June 2005

in Case T-384/03 Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No requirement to adjudicate)

(2005/C 217/89)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-384/03: Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI), established in Rome (Italy), represented by G. Folridia and R. Floridia, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and M. Luce Capostagno), the other party to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of Appeal being Microarea SpA, established in Genoa (Italy), represented by E. Itri, lawyer — action against the decision of 11 September 2003 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R/894/2002-1) in relation to an opposition procedure between Reti Televisive Italiane and Microaerea SpA — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, J. Azizi and E. Cremona, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 27 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application.

| 2. | The parties shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2004

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/41

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 28 June 2005

in Case T-158/04 Erich Drazdansky v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark ‘UUP'S’ - Earlier national word marks UP - Dismissal of the application for restitutio in integrum (re-establishment of rights) - Article 78(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Action manifestly without legal substance)

(2005/C 217/90)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-158/04: Erich Drazdansky, residing in Wiener Neustadt (Austria), represented by A.M. Leeb, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of Appeal, and intervener before the Court of First Instance, being The Concentrate Manufacturing Company of Ireland (Seven-Up International), established in Hamilton (Bermuda), represented by M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer — action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2004 (Case R 611/2003-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Drazdansky and The Concentrate Manufacturing Company of Ireland — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Lindh and V. Vadapalas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 28 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The applicant is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217 of 28.8.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/41

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 28 June 2005

in Case T-170/04: FederDoc and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 - Common organisation of the market in wine - System governing traditional terms - Legal persons - Persons individually concerned - Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 217/91)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-170/04: Confederazione nazionale dei consorzi volontari per la tutela delle denominazioni di origine e delle indicazioni geografiche tipiche dei vini italiani (FederDoc), established in Rome (Italy), Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella, established in San Floriano (Italy), Consorzio tutela denominazione Frascati Soc. consortile coop. rl, established in Frascati (Italy), Consorzio del vino Brunello di Montalcino, established in Montalcino (Italy), Cantina cooperativa di Montefiascone Soc. coop. rl, established in Montefiascone (Italy), Azienda agricola Ruggiero Giuseppa ‘Masseria Felicia’ Snc, established in Carano di Sessa A. (Italy), Michele Moio fu Luigi Srl, established in Mondragone (Italy), Consorzio vino Chianti Classico, established in Radda in Chianti (Italy), Consorzio tutela vini DOC Colli Piacentini, established in Piacenza (Italy), Cantine grotta del sole Srl, established in Quarto (Italy), Val Calore Soc. coop. rl, established in Castel San Lorenzo (Italy), Consorzio tutela Morellino di Scansano, established in Scansano (Italy), Consorzio tutela vini Gambellara DOC, established in Gambellara (Italy), Consorzio tutela dei vini Soave e Recioto di Soave, established in Soave (Italy), Azienda vitivinicola eredi Ing. Nicola Guglierame, established in Pornassio (Italy), Cooperativa agricola di Riomaggiore, Manarola, Corniglia, Vernazza e Monterosso, established in Riomaggiore (Italy), Consorzio per la tutela dei vini di Valtellina, established in Sondrio (Italy), Consorzio tutela vini DOC ‘Breganze’, established in Breganze (Italy), Consorzio volontario per la tutela del vino Marsala, established in Marsala (Italy), Consorzio vini Valdichiana, established in Arezzo (Italy), Consorzio del vino nobile di Montepulciano, established in Montepulciano (Italy), represented by L. Spagnuolo Vigorita, P. Tanoni and R. Gandin, lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Nolin and V. Di Bucci, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for the annulment, or in the alternative, partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 of 20 February 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products (OJ 2004 L 55, p. 16) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 28 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicants shall bear their own costs and those of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants shall bear their own costs and those of the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 179 of 10.7.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/42

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 29 June 2005

in Case T-254/04: Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas v Committee of the Regions of the European Union (1)

(Officials - Recruitment - Post of Secretary General of the Committee of the Regions - Enforcement of a judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling an appointment decision - Annulment by the institution of the vacancy notice and commencement of a new recruitment procedure)

(2005/C 217/92)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-254/04: Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by X. Gousta, lawyer, against Committee of the Regions of the European Union (Agent: P. Cervilla, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer) — action for annulment of the decision of the Committee of the Regions of 8 October 2003 annulling procedure 2000/C 28 A/01 for recruitment of a Secretary General for the Committee of the Regions and commencing a new procedure for the same post — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, V. Tiili and O. Czúcz, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 29 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed as, in part, inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as, in part, inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | The parties shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/42

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 27 June 2005

in Case T-349/04 Parfümerie Douglas GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark - Removal of the earlier mark from the register - No need to adjudicate)

(2005/C 217/93)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-349/04: Parfümerie Douglas GmbH, established in Hagen (Germany), represented by C. Schumann, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: A. von Mühlendahl), the other party to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of Appeal having been Jürgen Heinz Douglas, residing in Hamburg (Germany) — action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 May 2004 (Case R 795/2002-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Parfümerie Douglas GmbH and Jürgen Heinz Douglas — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Šváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 27 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/43

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 28 June 2005

in Case T-386/04 Eridania SpA and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector - Pricing system - Regionalisation - Deficit areas - Classification of Italy - Marketing year 2004/2005 - Regulation (EC) No 1216/2004 - Action for annulment - Natural and legal persons - Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 217/94)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case T-386/04: Eridania Sadam SpA and Others, established in Bologna (Italy), Italia Zuccheri SpA, established in Bologna, Zuccherificio del Molise SpA, established in Termoli (Italy), CO.PRO. B — Cooperativa produttori bieticoli Soc. coop. rl, established in Minerbio (Italy), SFIR — Società fondiaria industriale romagnola SpA, established in Cesena (Italy), represented by G. Pittalis, I. Vigliotti, G. M. Roberti, P. Ziotti and A. Franchi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by the Council of the European Union (Agent: F. Ruggeri Laderchi), — action for annulment of Article 1(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1216/2004 of 30 June 2004 fixing the derived intervention prices for white sugar for the marketing year 2004/2005 (OJ L 232, of 01.07.2004, p.25) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, M.E. Martins Ribeiro and K. Jürimae, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 28 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The application is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the Associazione nazionale bieticoltori, the Consorzio nazionale bieticoltori and the Associazione bieticoltori italiani. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the Associazione nazionale bieticoltori, the Consorzio nazionale bieticoltori and the Associazione bieticoltori italiani.

| 3. | The applicants, in addition to bearing their own costs, shall pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The applicants, in addition to bearing their own costs, shall pay those incurred by the Commission.

| 4. | The Council shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Council shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 284 of 20.11.2004

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/43

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 1 July 2005

in Case T-482/04: KOMSA Kommunikation Sachsen AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - Case does not proceed to judgment)

(2005/C 217/95)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-482/04: KOMSA Kommunikation Sachsen AG, established in Hartmannsdorf (Germany), represented by F. Hagemann, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: T. Eichenberg), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM having been Anders + Kern Präsentationssysteme GmbH & Co. KG, established in Norderstedt (Germany) — action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2004 (Case R 65/2003-4), concerning opposition proceedings between KOMSA Kommunikation Sachsen AG and Anders + Kern Präsentationssysteme GmbH & Co. KG — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J. D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and I. Labucka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 1 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application.

| 2. | The parties shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 57 of 5.3.2005.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/44

---

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 22 June 2005

in Case T-171/05 R: Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities

(Proceedings for interim relief - Officials - Suspension of operation of a measure - Admissibility)

(2005/C 217/96)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-171/05 R: Bart Nijs, official of the Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing in Bereldange (Luxembourg), represented by F. Rollinger, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Agents: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and G. Corstens, with an address for service in Luxembourg): application to suspend the operation of the Court of Auditors' decision of 2 December 2004 to promote an official other than the applicant to the post of principal translator at grade LA5 in the Dutch Section of the Translation Service of the General Secretariat of the Court of Auditors — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on 22 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/44

---

Action brought on 10 May 2005 by Alenia Marconi Systems SpA against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-186/05)

(2005/C 217/97)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 May 2005 by Alenia Marconi Systems SpA, established in Rome (Italy), represented by Francesco Sciaudone, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by having adopted the decision of 12 February 2004, the Commission has incurred non-contractual liability; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by having adopted the decision of 12 February 2004, the Commission has incurred non-contractual liability;

| 2. | declare that the applicant has suffered damage as a result of that decision, quantified at EUR 72.8 million; |
| --- | --- |

2.

declare that the applicant has suffered damage as a result of that decision, quantified at EUR 72.8 million;

| 3. | order the Commission to make good such damage, together with compensatory interest and any interest on arrears; |
| --- | --- |

3.

order the Commission to make good such damage, together with compensatory interest and any interest on arrears;

| 4. | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action seeks to obtain an order against the Commission to make good, as a matter of non-contractual liability, the damage caused to the applicant, by the defendant's alleged failure, in adopting the decision of 12 February 2004, to exercise correctly the supervisory functions it has in relation to monitoring the application of the Community competition provisions. That decision rejected the complaint lodged by the company then named Alenia Difesa, the business arm of FINMECCANICA SpA, in connection with the supposed absence of the preconditions for the applicability to Eurocontrol of the Community competition provisions and the absence of sufficient evidence to prove the alleged abuses to which the complaint related.

The same decision was challenged by the same applicant by means of an action for annulment. (1)

In support of its claims, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 82 of the Treaty in the assessment of its applicability to Eurocontrol, infringement of the duties of supervision of the application of the competition rules, infringement of the obligation to examine the complaint impartially and diligently, infringement of its rights as the complainant and infringement of the principle of reasonable duration of the administrative proceedings.

---

(1)  Case T-155/04 Alenia Marconi Systems v Commission (OJ C 179 of 10.7.04, p. 11).

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/45

---

Action brought on 9 June 2005 by Francisco Rossi Ferreras against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-222/05)

(2005/C 217/98)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 June 2005 by Francisco Rossi Ferreras, resident in Luxembourg, represented by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of 22 July 2004 confirming the career development report for the period 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003 and, as a subsidiary claim, therefore annul the career development report (CDR) for the period 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of 22 July 2004 confirming the career development report for the period 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003 and, as a subsidiary claim, therefore annul the career development report (CDR) for the period 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003;

| — | award the applicant the sum, subject to any amendment or increase, of EUR 100 000 (one hundred thousand euros) for non-pecuniary damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

award the applicant the sum, subject to any amendment or increase, of EUR 100 000 (one hundred thousand euros) for non-pecuniary damage;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official, challenges his career development report for the assessment year 2003 by alleging infringement of Articles 5, 7 and 43 of the Staff Regulations and a manifest error of assessment. He also claims to be the victim of harassment at work by his senior.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/45

---

Action brought on 8 June 2005 by CAMAR Srl against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-223/05)

(2005/C 217/99)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 June 2005 by CAMAR Srl, established in Florence, represented by Wilma Viscardini, Simonetta Donà and Mariano Paolin, lawyers, for an order against the Commission to pay damages in accordance with the criteria proposed by the applicant or other criteria which the Court considers more appropriate in the light of the judgment in Case T-260/97.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | order the European Commission to compensate the applicant for the damage suffered as a result of the unlawful failure by the Commission to take the measures necessary within the meaning of Article 30 of Council Regulation No 404/93, as held by the Court in its judgment of 8 June 2000 in Case T-79/96, in accordance with the criteria proposed by the applicant or other criteria which the Court considers more appropriate in the light of the judgment in Case T-260/97; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to compensate the applicant for the damage suffered as a result of the unlawful failure by the Commission to take the measures necessary within the meaning of Article 30 of Council Regulation No 404/93, as held by the Court in its judgment of 8 June 2000 in Case T-79/96, in accordance with the criteria proposed by the applicant or other criteria which the Court considers more appropriate in the light of the judgment in Case T-260/97;

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks an order against the Commission to pay compensation for the damage suffered by it, already pleaded in Case T-79/96 CAMAR v Commission. (1)

It must be noted that in that case it was held by the Court that even though the defendant had acted unlawfully and therefore the action was admissible in so far as the declaration for failure to act was concerned, the action for compensation was inadmissible owing to the impossibility, at that time, of quantifying the extent of the future damage.

The pleas and main arguments are, for the most part, the same as those relied on in the case cited above and in Case T-457/04 CAMAR v Commission. (2)

---

(1)  Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98 [2000] ECR II-2173.

(2)  OJ C 31 of 5.2.2005, p. 28.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/46

---

Action brought on 23 June 2005 by Nomura Principal Investment Plc and Nomura International Plc against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-233/05)

(2005/C 217/100)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 June 2005 by Nomura Principal Investment Plc and Nomura International Plc, established in London (United Kingdom), represented by C.-D. Ehlermann, F. Louis, A. Vallery and G. Axel Gutermuth, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the Commission Decision D(2005) 3507 of 13 April 2005 in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission Decision D(2005) 3507 of 13 April 2005 in its entirety;

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission has, in the contested decision, confirmed its refusal to grant the applicants access to a copy of the non-confidential version of all documents collected during the proceedings and investigations leading to the adoption of the Commission's decision of 14 July 2004 in State Aid case No. CZ 46/2003 — Czech Republic — Investicní a postovní banka, a.s. (IPB)/Ceskoslovenská obchodní banka, a.s. (CSOB).

The applicants submit that the Commission wrongly applied the exception in Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) to all the documents in question and that the Commission, amongst other things, failed to carry out an individual assessment of the content of the documents.

With regard to the documents originating from the Czech authorities and the Commission's internal documents, the applicants claim that the Commission misapplied the exceptions laid down in Article 4(3), second subparagraph, and Article 4(5) of the Regulation.

The applicants moreover submit that the Commission erred in refusing to grant partial access to the requested documents under Article 4(6) of the Regulation and that the Commission failed to provide sufficient reasoning in accordance with Article 253 EC.

Finally, the applicants are of the opinion that the exceptions in Article 4(2), third indent, and Article 4(3), second subparagraph, of the Regulation should be set aside and that access to the documents should be granted for the benefit of the overriding public interest in the protection of the integrity of the European Union's State aid and enlargement policies.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/46

---

Action brought on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-245/05)

(2005/C 217/101)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Townson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag, established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 19 April 2005 (Case R 723/2004-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 19 April 2005 (Case R 723/2004-1);

| — | declare opposition proceedings B499 004 inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare opposition proceedings B499 004 inadmissible;

| — | order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | The applicant |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark concerned: | Coloured figurative mark in black and yellow, in the form of a tool for goods in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.) |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Atlas Copco Aktiebolag |
| Trade mark or sign cited in opposition: | Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Rejects opposition as inadmissible |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution |
| Pleas in law: | The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1). |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

The applicant

Community trade mark concerned:

Coloured figurative mark in black and yellow, in the form of a tool for goods in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Rejects opposition as inadmissible

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

Pleas in law:

The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1).

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/47

---

Action brought on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-246/05)

(2005/C 217/102)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 19 April 2005 (Case R 730/2004-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 19 April 2005 (Case R 730/2004-1);

| — | declare opposition proceedings B498 717 inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare opposition proceedings B498 717 inadmissible;

| — | order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | The applicant |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark concerned: | Colour figurative mark in black and yellow, in the form of a tool for goods in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.) |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Atlas Copco Aktiebolag |
| Trade mark or sign cited in opposition: | Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Rejects opposition as inadmissible |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution |
| Pleas in law: | The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1). |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

The applicant

Community trade mark concerned:

Colour figurative mark in black and yellow, in the form of a tool for goods in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Rejects opposition as inadmissible

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

Pleas in law:

The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1).

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/48

---

Action brought on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-247/05)

(2005/C 217/103)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 27 April 2005 (Case R 724/2004-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 27 April 2005 (Case R 724/2004-1);

| — | declare opposition proceedings B497 109 inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare opposition proceedings B497 109 inadmissible;

| — | order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | The applicant |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark concerned: | Colour three-dimensional mark in black and yellow, in the form of a tool for goods in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.) |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Atlas Copco Aktiebolag |
| Trade mark or sign cited in opposition: | Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Rejects opposition as inadmissible |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution |
| Pleas in law: | The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1). |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

The applicant

Community trade mark concerned:

Colour three-dimensional mark in black and yellow, in the form of a tool for goods in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Rejects opposition as inadmissible

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

Pleas in law:

The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1).

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/49

---

Action brought on 1 July 2005 by MP Temporärpersonal GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-248/05)

(2005/C 217/104)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 July 2005 by MP Temporärpersonal GmbH, established in Graz (Austria) represented by M. Ciresa, lawyer.

Manpower Inc, established in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (USA), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 5 April 2005 (Case R 124/2004-4); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 5 April 2005 (Case R 124/2004-4);

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: | The word mark I.T.@MANPOWER for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark No 861 559 |
| --- | --- |
| Proprietor of the Community trade mark: | Manpower Inc. |
| Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: | MP Temporärpersonal GmbH |
| Grounds for the request for declaration of invalidity: | Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 40/94 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d) and (g) of Council Regulation No 40/94 |
| Decision of the Cancellation Division: | Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Dismissal of the appeal |
| Pleas in law: | Violation of Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d) and (g) of Council Regulation No 40/94 |

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity:

The word mark I.T.@MANPOWER for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark No 861 559

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Manpower Inc.

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

MP Temporärpersonal GmbH

Grounds for the request for declaration of invalidity:

Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 40/94 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d) and (g) of Council Regulation No 40/94

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

Violation of Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d) and (g) of Council Regulation No 40/94

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/50

---

Action brought on 30 June 2005 by Tineke Duyster against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-249/05)

(2005/C 217/105)

Language of the case: Dutch

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 2005 by Tineke Duyster, residing in Oetrange (Luxembourg), represented by W. H. A. M. van den Muijsenbergh, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 6 April 2005; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 6 April 2005;

| 2. | annul the decision on the award of parental leave of 1 November 2004 to 30 April 2005 inclusive and/or the salary slip for November 2004, and/or the Commission's decision of 30 November 2004 not to take account of the request for deferment or cancellation of the parental leave; |
| --- | --- |

2.

annul the decision on the award of parental leave of 1 November 2004 to 30 April 2005 inclusive and/or the salary slip for November 2004, and/or the Commission's decision of 30 November 2004 not to take account of the request for deferment or cancellation of the parental leave;

| 3. | find that from 1 November 2004 until 30 April 2005 inclusive Mrs Duyster has all substantive rights connected with the active service of an official and therefore, inter alia, payment according to her grade and step must be made to her with retroactive effect; |
| --- | --- |

3.

find that from 1 November 2004 until 30 April 2005 inclusive Mrs Duyster has all substantive rights connected with the active service of an official and therefore, inter alia, payment according to her grade and step must be made to her with retroactive effect;

| 4. | find that this payment must be made with interest for late payment; |
| --- | --- |

4.

find that this payment must be made with interest for late payment;

| 5. | find that parental leave with regard to her son may still be requested (even if, after the date when the judgment of the Court becomes effective, he is older than 12 years old or almost older than 12 years old) since the failure to approve the request submitted is the Commission's fault; alternatively, that, since the inability to take up parental leave in regard to her son is the fault of the Commission compensation must be paid for this corresponding to the loss of benefits for parental leave, insurance, seniority, the accrual of pension; appraisal reports and promotion opportunities, which can be estimated at a total of EUR 27 000; or, in the further alternative, that damages of EUR 800 per month over the period not taken up in respect of parental leave for her son shall be paid for loss of parental benefit, EUR 100 for loss of insurance, EUR 1 200 for loss of pension rights; |
| --- | --- |

5.

find that parental leave with regard to her son may still be requested (even if, after the date when the judgment of the Court becomes effective, he is older than 12 years old or almost older than 12 years old) since the failure to approve the request submitted is the Commission's fault; alternatively, that, since the inability to take up parental leave in regard to her son is the fault of the Commission compensation must be paid for this corresponding to the loss of benefits for parental leave, insurance, seniority, the accrual of pension; appraisal reports and promotion opportunities, which can be estimated at a total of EUR 27 000; or, in the further alternative, that damages of EUR 800 per month over the period not taken up in respect of parental leave for her son shall be paid for loss of parental benefit, EUR 100 for loss of insurance, EUR 1 200 for loss of pension rights;

| 6. | find that damages of EUR 2 500 must be paid to her as compensation for the uncertainty caused to Mrs Duyster as to her status as an official and the non-material detriment resulting from that uncertainty; |
| --- | --- |

6.

find that damages of EUR 2 500 must be paid to her as compensation for the uncertainty caused to Mrs Duyster as to her status as an official and the non-material detriment resulting from that uncertainty;

| 7. | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

7.

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submitted an application for parental leave for the period from 8 November 2004 until 7 May 2005. In response, the Commission granted the applicant parental leave from 1 November 2004 until 30 April 2005.

The applicant states that no formal refusal was received in response to her request for parental leave for the period from 8 November 2004 until 7 May 2005 and she concludes that her request was implicitly rejected. She also states that, as she did not challenge that rejection and did not submit any other application, she was in active service from 1 November 2004 until 30 April 2005 inclusive and is thus entitled to all benefits associated therewith.

In support of her application the applicant also submits that the decision awarding parental leave from 1 November 2004 until 30 April 2005 was adopted contrary to the principle of equality, the principle of legal certainty, Article 42a of the Staff Regulations and Articles 25, 26, 35, 36 and 62 of the Staff Regulations.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/50

---

Action brought on 24 June 2005 by European Dynamics S.A. against the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

(Case T-250/05)

(2005/C 217/106)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 June 2005 by European Dynamics S.A., established in Athens (Greece), represented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the OPOCE, to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the OPOCE, to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

| — | order the OPOCE to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this Application, even if the current Application is rejected. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the OPOCE to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this Application, even if the current Application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant company filed a bid in response to the OPOCE's call for tenders No. 6019-1 for the AProvision of Services in Relation to the Collection, Production and Dissemination of Electronic Publications, in particular the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union (OJS)@. By the contested decision the applicant's bid was rejected and the contract awarded to another bidder.

In support of its application the applicant contends that the contested decision was taken in violation of the principle of non-discrimination since the OPOCE failed to take action to investigate and remedy a problem brought to its attention by the applicant, namely that only a very limited number of companies producing CD-ROMs and located inside an approximate two-hours range from Luxembourg could supply the requested quantity within the framework imposed by the call for tenders, and that in this way tenderers were obliged to produce bids in collaboration with those companies and therefore be linked with them on price and quality issues. According to the applicant several alternatives existed but OPOCE failed to take any action and this led to a situation where only one bid could be accepted as fulfilling the technical evaluation criteria.

The applicant further invokes two alleged evident errors of assessment of the Evaluation Report, namely mistakenly considering that the price offered by the applicant was some EUR 800 000 higher than it actually was and noting, also erroneously, that the production did not seem realizable and that there was no information in the tender with regard to the CD-ROM.

Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to provide pertinent information and to state reasons.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/51

---

Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, SA against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-251/05)

(2005/C 217/107)

Language of the case: Portuguese

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 July 2005 by Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, SA, established in Lisbon, represented by C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul decision C(2005)1236 of the Commission of the European Communities of 14 April 2005‘reducing the amount of the assistance granted by the European Social Fund to Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, Lda in accordance with the Commission's Decision C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989’; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul decision C(2005)1236 of the Commission of the European Communities of 14 April 2005‘reducing the amount of the assistance granted by the European Social Fund to Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, Lda in accordance with the Commission's Decision C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989’;

| 2. | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Infringement of essential procedural requirements in that the Commission's decision procedure does not satisfy the formal requirements and in that insufficient justification is provided for the contested decision;

Infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations, inasmuch as the contested decision is, to the applicant's detriment, at variance with the earlier act attesting to the factual and accounting accuracy of the documents produced by the applicant with its request for payment of the balance certified by it;

Manifest error in the assessment of the documentary evidence of expenditure produced by Mediocurso; and

Infringement of the principle of proportionality, with regard to the grounds of fact and law put forward in support of the reduction of assistance which is the subject-matter of the contested decision.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/52

---

Action brought on 8 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-255/05)

(2005/C 217/108)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 27 April 2005 (Case R 722/2004-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 27 April 2005 (Case R 722/2004-1);

| — | declare opposition proceedings B503 468 inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare opposition proceedings B503 468 inadmissible;

| — | order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | The applicant |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark concerned: | Colour figurative mark in black and yellow, in the form of a tool for goods in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.) |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Atlas Copco Aktiebolag |
| Trade mark or sign cited in opposition: | Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Rejects opposition as inadmissible |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution |
| Pleas in law: | The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1). |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

The applicant

Community trade mark concerned:

Colour figurative mark in black and yellow, in the form of a tool for goods in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Rejects opposition as inadmissible

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

Pleas in law:

The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1).

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/52

---

Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-259/05)

(2005/C 217/109)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2005 by the Kingdom of Spain, having its seat in Madrid, represented by its Agent, Miguel Muñoz Pérez.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision 2005/354/EC of 29 April 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF (1) in the part being the object of the action; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision 2005/354/EC of 29 April 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF (1) in the part being the object of the action;

| — | order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against Commission Decision 2005/354/EC of 29 April 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). The aspects of that decision which are specifically challenged are as follows:

| — | imposition of a correction of 100 % of the expenditure declared in production aid for textile flax in the financial years 1998/1999 and 1999/2000. The applicant claims that the irregularities which would justify the imposition of that correction do not exist, since:






  — | the correction of 100 % of the expenditure is of an exceptional nature which the Commission has not justified; |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

imposition of a correction of 100 % of the expenditure declared in production aid for textile flax in the financial years 1998/1999 and 1999/2000. The applicant claims that the irregularities which would justify the imposition of that correction do not exist, since:

—

the correction of 100 % of the expenditure is of an exceptional nature which the Commission has not justified;

| — | the OLAF report on which the Commission relies suffers from significant technical defects which make it impossible to extend its findings to the entire flax sector in Spain; |
| --- | --- |

—

the OLAF report on which the Commission relies suffers from significant technical defects which make it impossible to extend its findings to the entire flax sector in Spain;

| — | the Commission has not taken into account the activities of the Spanish authorities in that sphere; and |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission has not taken into account the activities of the Spanish authorities in that sphere; and

| — | the Commission has not sufficiently justified the general scope of the loss sustained by the Community budget as a result of the irregularities present in the system for the administration of aid for textile flax. |
| --- | --- |

—

the Commission has not sufficiently justified the general scope of the loss sustained by the Community budget as a result of the irregularities present in the system for the administration of aid for textile flax.

| — | Imposition of a correction of 25 % of the expenditure declared in production aid for textile flax in the financial years 1996/1997 and 1997/1998. In that regard, the applicant claims:






  — | breach of essential procedural requirements during the procedure which led to the adoption of the financial correction, as that correction was applied without the Member State having had the opportunity to provide the information sought by the Commission before the bilateral meeting was held; and, in the alternative, |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Imposition of a correction of 25 % of the expenditure declared in production aid for textile flax in the financial years 1996/1997 and 1997/1998. In that regard, the applicant claims:

—

breach of essential procedural requirements during the procedure which led to the adoption of the financial correction, as that correction was applied without the Member State having had the opportunity to provide the information sought by the Commission before the bilateral meeting was held; and, in the alternative,

| — | absence of irregularities which would justify the financial correction made, since that correction cannot be based on failure to comply with the objectives underlying the common organisation of the markets in flax and hemp, when the Commission itself recognises that all the procedural conditions for the grant of the aid were fulfilled. |
| --- | --- |

—

absence of irregularities which would justify the financial correction made, since that correction cannot be based on failure to comply with the objectives underlying the common organisation of the markets in flax and hemp, when the Commission itself recognises that all the procedural conditions for the grant of the aid were fulfilled.

| — | Imposition, as regards production aid for hemp, of one correction of 10 % and another of 25 % of the expenditure corresponding to the financial years 1996/1997 and 1997/1998 respectively. On that point, the applicant claims, by way of breach of an essential procedural requirement, failure to fulfil the obligation to hold a bilateral meeting with the Member State concerned. In the alternative, the applicant also claims:






  — | that there was no failure to fulfil an obligation which would justify the imposition of the correction applied, since that correction is based on failure to comply with the objectives underlying the common organisation of the markets in flax and hemp, and also an unwarranted comparison between the situation in the flax sector and the situation in the hemp sector; and |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Imposition, as regards production aid for hemp, of one correction of 10 % and another of 25 % of the expenditure corresponding to the financial years 1996/1997 and 1997/1998 respectively. On that point, the applicant claims, by way of breach of an essential procedural requirement, failure to fulfil the obligation to hold a bilateral meeting with the Member State concerned. In the alternative, the applicant also claims:

—

that there was no failure to fulfil an obligation which would justify the imposition of the correction applied, since that correction is based on failure to comply with the objectives underlying the common organisation of the markets in flax and hemp, and also an unwarranted comparison between the situation in the flax sector and the situation in the hemp sector; and

| — | inadequate justification for the increase in the percentage of the correction between the financial years 1997 and 1998 and those of 1999 and 2000. |
| --- | --- |

—

inadequate justification for the increase in the percentage of the correction between the financial years 1997 and 1998 and those of 1999 and 2000.

| — | Imposition, as regards the compensatory aid for bananas, of a correction of 5 % of the expenditure corresponding to the financial year 2000. In relation to this part of the application, the applicant denies the existence of irregularities which would justify the imposition of a correction percentage. |
| --- | --- |

—

Imposition, as regards the compensatory aid for bananas, of a correction of 5 % of the expenditure corresponding to the financial year 2000. In relation to this part of the application, the applicant denies the existence of irregularities which would justify the imposition of a correction percentage.

---

(1)  OJ L 112 of 3.5.2005, p. 14

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/53 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/53

---

Action brought on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-262/05)

(2005/C 217/110)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company, established in Cincinnati, Ohio (USA), represented by G. Kuipers, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 1 June 2005 (Case R 1184/2004-1) in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 1 June 2005 (Case R 1184/2004-1) in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94;

| — | order the OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Community trade mark concerned: | The three dimensional mark consisting of a square white tablet showing a green six petalled floral design for goods in class 3 (Washing and bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; preparations for the washing cleaning and care of dishes; soaps;...) — application No 1 683 168 |
| --- | --- |
| Decision of the examiner: | Refusal of the application |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Dismissal of the appeal |
| Pleas in law: | Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94. |

Community trade mark concerned:

The three dimensional mark consisting of a square white tablet showing a green six petalled floral design for goods in class 3 (Washing and bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; preparations for the washing cleaning and care of dishes; soaps;...) — application No 1 683 168

Decision of the examiner:

Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/54

---

Action brought on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-263/05)

(2005/C 217/111)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company, established in Cincinnati, Ohio (USA), represented by G. Kuipers, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 845/2004-1) in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 845/2004-1) in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94;

| — | order the OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Community trade mark concerned: | The three dimensional mark consisting of a square white tablet showing a lilac four petalled floral design for goods in class 3 (Washing and bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; preparations for the washing cleaning and care of dishes; soaps;...) — application No 1 683 713 |
| --- | --- |
| Decision of the examiner: | Refusal of the application |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Dismissal of the appeal |
| Pleas in law: | Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94. |

Community trade mark concerned:

The three dimensional mark consisting of a square white tablet showing a lilac four petalled floral design for goods in class 3 (Washing and bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; preparations for the washing cleaning and care of dishes; soaps;...) — application No 1 683 713

Decision of the examiner:

Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/54

---

Action brought on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-264/05)

(2005/C 217/112)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 July 2005 by The Procter & Gamble Company, established in Cincinnati, Ohio (USA), represented by G. Kuipers, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 4 May 2005 (Case R 849/2004-1) in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 4 May 2005 (Case R 849/2004-1) in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94;

| — | order the OHIM to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

| Community trade mark concerned: | The three dimensional mark consisting of a square white tablet showing a green four petalled floral design for goods in class 3 (Washing and bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; preparations for the washing cleaning and care of dishes; soaps;...) — application No 1 684 059 |
| --- | --- |
| Decision of the examiner: | Refusal of the application |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Dismissal of the appeal |
| Pleas in law: | Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94. |

Community trade mark concerned:

The three dimensional mark consisting of a square white tablet showing a green four petalled floral design for goods in class 3 (Washing and bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; preparations for the washing cleaning and care of dishes; soaps;...) — application No 1 684 059

Decision of the examiner:

Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/55

---

Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-273/05)

(2005/C 217/113)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 786/2004-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 786/2004-1);

| — | declare opposition proceedings B623 589 inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare opposition proceedings B623 589 inadmissible;

| — | order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | The applicant |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark concerned: | Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.) |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Atlas Copco Aktiebolag |
| Trade mark or sign cited in opposition: | Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Rejects opposition as inadmissible |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution |
| Pleas in law: | The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1). |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

The applicant

Community trade mark concerned:

Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Rejects opposition as inadmissible

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

Pleas in law:

The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1).

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/56

---

Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-274/05)

(2005/C 217/114)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 788/2004-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 788/2004-1);

| — | declare opposition proceedings B622 318 inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare opposition proceedings B622 318 inadmissible;

| — | order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | The applicant |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark concerned: | Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.) |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Atlas Copco Aktiebolag |
| Trade mark or sign cited in opposition: | Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Rejects opposition as inadmissible |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution |
| Pleas in law: | The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1). |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

The applicant

Community trade mark concerned:

Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Rejects opposition as inadmissible

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

Pleas in law:

The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1).

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/56

---

Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-275/05)

(2005/C 217/115)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 789/2004-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 789/2004-1);

| — | declare opposition proceedings B622 136 inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare opposition proceedings B622 136 inadmissible;

| — | order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | The applicant |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark concerned: | Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.) |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Atlas Copco Aktiebolag |
| Trade mark or sign cited in opposition: | Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Rejects opposition as inadmissible |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution |
| Pleas in law: | The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1). |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

The applicant

Community trade mark concerned:

Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Rejects opposition as inadmissible

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

Pleas in law:

The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1).

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/57

---

Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-276/05)

(2005/C 217/116)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 790/2004-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 790/2004-1);

| — | declare opposition proceedings B623 613 inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare opposition proceedings B623 613 inadmissible;

| — | order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | The applicant |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark concerned: | Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.) |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Atlas Copco Aktiebolag |
| Trade mark or sign cited in opposition: | Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Rejects opposition as inadmissible |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution |
| Pleas in law: | The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1). |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

The applicant

Community trade mark concerned:

Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Rejects opposition as inadmissible

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

Pleas in law:

The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1).

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/58

---

Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-277/05)

(2005/C 217/117)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 791/2004-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 791/2004-1);

| — | declare opposition proceedings B623 555 inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare opposition proceedings B623 555 inadmissible;

| — | order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | The applicant |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark concerned: | Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.) |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Atlas Copco Aktiebolag |
| Trade mark or sign cited in opposition: | Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Rejects opposition as inadmissible |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution |
| Pleas in law: | The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No 2868/1995 (1). |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

The applicant

Community trade mark concerned:

Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Rejects opposition as inadmissible

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

Pleas in law:

The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No 2868/1995 (1).

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/59

---

Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-278/05)

(2005/C 217/118)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 792/2004-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 792/2004-1);

| — | declare opposition proceedings B623 688 inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare opposition proceedings B623 688 inadmissible;

| — | order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | The applicant |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark concerned: | Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.) |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Atlas Copco Aktiebolag |
| Trade mark or sign cited in opposition: | Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Rejects opposition as inadmissible |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution |
| Pleas in law: | The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1). |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

The applicant

Community trade mark concerned:

Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Rejects opposition as inadmissible

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

Pleas in law:

The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1).

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/60

---

Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-279/05)

(2005/C 217/119)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 793/2004-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 793/2004-1);

| — | declare opposition proceedings B622 300 inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare opposition proceedings B622 300 inadmissible;

| — | order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | The applicant |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark concerned: | Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.) |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Atlas Copco Aktiebolag |
| Trade mark or sign cited in opposition: | Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Rejects opposition as inadmissible |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution |
| Pleas in law: | The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1). |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

The applicant

Community trade mark concerned:

Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Rejects opposition as inadmissible

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

Pleas in law:

The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1).

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/61

---

Action brought on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-280/05)

(2005/C 217/120)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 794/2004-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 3 May 2005 (Case R 794/2004-1);

| — | declare opposition proceedings B622 250 inadmissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare opposition proceedings B622 250 inadmissible;

| — | order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | The applicant |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark concerned: | Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.) |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Atlas Copco Aktiebolag |
| Trade mark or sign cited in opposition: | Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Rejects opposition as inadmissible |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution |
| Pleas in law: | The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1). |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

The applicant

Community trade mark concerned:

Colour mark in black and yellow in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Rejects opposition as inadmissible

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

Pleas in law:

The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No. 2868/1995 (1).

---

(1)   Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/61

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-50/97 (1)

(2005/C 217/121)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-50/97, H. Buwalda v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/62

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-51/97 (1)

(2005/C 217/122)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-51/97 G J Meijer v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/62

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-53/97 (1)

(2005/C 217/123)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-53/97, B.J.G. Oude Kotte v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/62

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-54/97 (1)

(2005/C 217/124)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-54/97, H.J. Leemkuil v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/62

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-55/97 (1)

(2005/C 217/125)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-55/97, C.H.L. Wijnen v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/62

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-56/97 (1)

(2005/C 217/126)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-56/97, W.C.G.M. Stoffelen v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/62

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-57/97 (1)

(2005/C 217/127)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-57/97, R. Dusselaar v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/63

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-58/97 (1)

(2005/C 217/128)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-58/97, H. Heringa v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/63

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-59/97 (1)

(2005/C 217/129)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-59/97, A. Lukens Folkers v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/63

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-63/97 (1)

(2005/C 217/130)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-63/97, P.J.M. Janssen v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/63

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-65/97 (1)

(2005/C 217/131)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-65/97, Th.H.P. Neelen v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/63

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-66/97 (1)

(2005/C 217/132)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-66/97, J.T.F.J. Op 't Veld v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/63

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-67/97 (1)

(2005/C 217/133)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-67/97, J.P.M. Wolfs v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/64

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-69/97 (1)

(2005/C 217/134)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-69/97, M.V. Diederen v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/64

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-145/97 (1)

(2005/C 217/135)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-145/97, J.P.W. Vrencken v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/64

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-385/02 (1)

(2005/C 217/136)

(Language of the case: English)

By order of 10 June 2005, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-385/02, Marta Andreasen v Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.

---

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/64

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-437/03 (1)

(2005/C 217/137)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 7 June 2005, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-437/03, Anne-Marie Mathieu v Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 59 of 6.3.2004.

---

III Notices

| 3.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 217/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/65

---

(2005/C 217/138)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 205, 20.8.2005

Past publications

OJ C 193, 6.8.2005

OJ C 182, 23.7.2005

OJ C 171, 9.7.2005

OJ C 155, 25.6.2005

OJ C 143, 11.6.2005

OJ C 132, 28.5.2005

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

| | CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex |
| --- | --- |

CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex

---