Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:240
Date: 2013-04-16
Language of the case: Italian;Spanish
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Subject matter: Intellectual, industrial and commercial property;Patents;Closer cooperation
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Spain;Italy

summary reasons may be given (judgment of 26 June 2012 in Case C‑335/09 P Poland v Commission, paragraph 152 and case‑law cited). Having regard to the applicants’ participation in the negotiations and to the detailed description of the fruitless stages before the contested decision set out in the proposal that was to lead to that decision, it cannot be concluded that that decision was vitiated by any failure to state reasons capable of resulting in its annulment. 59 Having regard to the foregoing, the plea in law alleging breach of the condition that a decision authorising enhanced cooperation is to be adopted only as a last resort must be rejected. The fourth plea in law: infringement of Article 20(1) TEU and of Articles 118 TFEU, 326 TFEU and 327 TFEU The alleged infringement of Article 20(1) TEU – Arguments of the parties 60 According to the Kingdom of Spain and the Italian Republic, the Council was wrong to consider that the enhanced cooperation in question would pursue the objectives set out in Article 20(1) TEU by creating a higher level of integration compared to the current situation. They claim that there exists a certain level of uniformity because the legislation of all the Member States is compatible with the provisions of the EPC. Creating a unitary patent covering only part of the Union is, in their view, likely to damage that uniformity and not to improve it. 61 The Council and those parties intervening in its support observe that both national patents and European patents validated in one Member State or more confer only national protection. The unitary patent contemplated by the contested decision would give undertakings uniform protection in 25 Member States. Uniform protection throughout the Union would indeed be even more favourable to the functioning of the internal market, but enhanced cooperation would at least make it possible to draw close to that objective and would therefore result in better integration. – Findings of the Court 62 As argued by the Council and the parties intervening in its support, European patents granted in accordance with the rules of the EPC do not confer uniform protection in the Contracting States to that convention but rather, in every one of those States, guarantee protection whose extent is defined by national law. In contrast, the unitary patent contemplated by the contested decision would confer uniform protection in the territory of all the Member States taking part in the enhanced cooperation. 63 In consequence, the applicants’ argument that the protection conferred by that unitary patent would not be advantageous in terms of uniformity, and so of integration, compared to the situation created by the operation of the rules laid down by the EPC, must be rejected as unfounded. The alleged infringement of Article 118 TFEU – Arguments of the parties 64 The Italian Republic observes that Article 118 TFEU provides for the creation of European intellectual property rights to provide uniform protection ‘throughout the Union’, by means of the setting up of centralised, ‘Union-wide’ authorisation, coordination and supervision arrangements. However, what the Council has authorised is, precisely, the creation of a right that is not valid throughout the Union. 65 The Council and the parties intervening in its support repeat their view that the unitary patent contemplated by the contested decision allows undertakings to enjoy uniform protection in 25 Member States and so improves the functioning of the internal market. – Findings of the Court 66 It is apparent from the first paragraph of Article 326 TFEU that the exercise, within the ambit of enhanced cooperation, of any competence conferred on the Union must comply with, among other provisions of the Treaties, that which confers that competence. The enhanced cooperation to which these actions relate must, therefore, be consistent with Article 118 TFEU. 67 Having regard to this duty to ensure accordance with Article 118 TFEU, the enhanced cooperation in question must establish measures for the creation of European intellectual property rights to provide uniform protection of intellectual property rights. 68 With regard, on the other hand, to the expressions ‘throughout the Union’ and ‘Union-wide’ used in Article 118 TFEU, it must be held that it is inherent in the fact that the competence conferred by that article is, in this instance, exercised within the ambit of enhanced cooperation that the European intellectual property right so created, the uniform protection given by it and the arrangements attaching to it will be in force, not in the Union in its entirety, but only in the territory of the participating Member States. Far from amounting to infringement of Article 118 TFEU, that consequence necessarily follows from Article 20(4) TEU, which states: ‘Acts adopted in the framework of enhanced cooperation shall bind only participating Member States.’ 69 Consequently, the arguments alleging infringement of Article 118 TFEU are unfounded. The alleged infringement of the second paragraph of Article 326 TFEU – Arguments of the parties 70 The Kingdom of Spain and the Italian Republic recall the wording of the second paragraph of Article 326 TFEU, according to which enhanced cooperation ‘shall not undermine the internal market or economic, social and territorial cohesion [and] shall not constitute a barrier to or discrimination in trade between Member States, nor shall it distort competition between them’. 71 The enhanced cooperation in question would, in their opinion, jeopardise all those principles and objectives. Creating uniform protection for innovation in one part only of the Union would encourage activities relating to innovatory products to be drawn to that part of the Union, to the detriment of the non-participating Member States. 72 In addition, they claim that the enhanced cooperation in question would be the source of distortion of competition and of discrimination between undertakings by reason of the fact that trade in innovatory products will be, according to the language arrangements provided for in recital 7 of the preamble to the contested decision, made easier for undertakings working in English, French or German. The enhanced cooperation contemplated would, moreover, reduce the mobility of researchers from Member States not taking part in this cooperation or from Member States whose official language is not English, French or German, for the language arrangements provided for by the decision will make access to information on the scope of the patents difficult for those researchers. 73 Economic, social and territorial cohesion in the Union too would be damaged, they argue, in that the enhanced cooperation would prevent the coherent development of industrial policy and increase the differences between Member States from the technological point of view. 74 The Council and the parties intervening in its support take the view that this plea in law is based on premises in the realm of speculation. Furthermore, the origin of the fragmentation of the market is to be found, not in the contested decision, but in the present situation, in which the protection offered by European patents is national. What is more, inasmuch as the applicants base their arguments on the language arrangements contemplated, their actions are inadmissible, the definitive features of those language arrangements not being fixed by the contested decision. – Findings of the Court 75 For the same reason as that set out in paragraph 68 above, it cannot validly be maintained that, by having it in view to create a unitary patent applicable in the participating Member States and not in the Union, the contested decision damages the internal market or the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the Union. 76 In so far as, in order to demonstrate such damage to the internal market and discrimination and distortion of competition as well, the applicants also make reference to the language arrangements considered in recital 7 in the preamble to the contested decision, it must be declared that the compatibility of those arrangements with Union law may not be examined in these actions. 77 As is stated in recital 7, the language arrangements there described do no more than correspond to a proposal by the Commission with the addition of certain elements of compromise proposed by the Member State presiding over the Council of the Union at the time the requests for enhanced cooperation were made. The language arrangements as set out in that recital were, therefore, only at a preparatory stage when the contested decision was adopted and do not form a component part of the latter. 78 It follows that the arguments alleging infringement of Article 326 TFEU are in part unfounded and in part inadmissible. The alleged infringement of Article 327 TFEU – Arguments of the parties 79 Contrary to what is prescribed by Article 327 TFEU, the enhanced cooperation in question does not, according to the Kingdom of Spain, respect the rights of the Member States not participating in it. In particular, the Kingdom of Spain and the Italian Republic’s right to take part in future in this enhanced cooperation is infringed, for the Council favours language arrangements that those two Member States do not accept. 80 According to the Council and the parties intervening in its support, this plea relies on the mistaken premiss that it is impossible, de facto or de jure, for the Kingdom of Spain and the Italian Republic to take part in this cooperation. – Findings of the Court 81 Under Article 327 TFEU, the enhanced cooperation authorised by the contested decision must respect ‘the competences, rights and obligations’ of the Kingdom of Spain and the Italian Republic as Member States not taking part in the cooperation. 82 Nothing in the contested decision prejudices any competence, right or obligation of those two Member States. In particular, the prospect, indicated by that decision, of the introduction of the language arrangements objected to by the Kingdom of Spain and the Italian Republic may not be described as prejudicial to the competences, rights or obligations of those latter States. While it is, admittedly, essential for enhanced cooperation not to lead to the adoption of measures that might prevent the non-participating Member States from exercising their competences and rights or shouldering their obligations, it is, in contrast, permissible for those taking part in this cooperation to prescribe rules with which those non-participating States would not agree if they did take part in it. 83 Indeed, the prescription of such rules does not render ineffective the opportunity for non-participating Member States of joining in the enhanced cooperation. As provided by the first paragraph of Article 328(1) TFEU, participation is subject to the condition of compliance with the acts already adopted by those Member States that have taken part in that cooperation since it began. 84 In addition, it has to be noted that the Kingdom of Spain and the Italian Republic have not disproved the matters mentioned in the second, third and fourth sentences of Recital 14 in the preamble to the contested decision. 85 It follows that the arguments alleging infringement of Article 327 TFEU are unfounded too. 86 It follows from all the foregoing that the fourth plea in law raised by the applicants in support of their actions, alleging infringement of Articles 20(1) TEU, 118 TFEU, 326 TFEU and 327 TFEU, must be rejected. The fifth plea in law: disregard for the judicial system of the Union Arguments of the parties 87 The Kingdom of Spain observes that the judicial system of the Union is composed of a whole body of means of obtaining redress and of procedures, designed to ensure review of the lawfulness of the acts of the institutions of the Union. It considers that the Council disregarded that system by authorising enhanced cooperation without specifying what the judicial system envisaged was. While it is true that it is not necessary to create, in every measure of secondary legislation, a set of judicial rules for that measure, the Kingdom of Spain takes the view that the judicial rules applicable must nevertheless be specified in a measure authorising the creation of a new European intellectual property right. 88 The Council and the parties intervening in its support argue that the Court has made it clear in paragraph 62 of Opinion 1/09 [2011] ECR I‑1137 that Article 262 TFEU provides for the mere option of creating a specific legal remedy for disputes relating to the application of acts of the European Union creating European intellectual property rights, but does require any particular judicial structure to be set up. At all events, it is in no way necessary for the decision by which enhanced cooperation is authorised to contain details of the procedures under the judicial rules to be introduced in respect of that cooperation. Findings of the Court 89 The authorisation of enhanced cooperation challenged in these actions was granted by the Council pursuant to Article 329(1) TFEU, that is to say, on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the Parliament’s consent. 90 The Commission’s proposal was based on the requests of those Member States wishing to establish the enhanced cooperation in question. As provided for in that article, those requests must specify ‘the scope and objectives of the enhanced cooperation proposed’. 91 It is clear from the documents before the Court that those details appeared both in the requests and in the Commission’s proposal. They were repeated in the contested decision, in recitals 6 and 7 in particular. 92 The Council was not obliged to provide, in the contested decision, further information with regard to the possible content of the system adopted by the participants in the enhanced cooperation in question. The sole purpose of that decision was to authorise the requesting Member States to establish that cooperation. It was thereafter for those States, having recourse to the institutions of the Union following the procedures laid down in Articles 20 TEU and 326 TFEU to 334 TFEU, to set up the unitary patent and to lay down the rules attaching to it, including, if necessary, specific rules in the judicial sphere. 93 It follows that the fifth plea too must be rejected. 94 Given that none of the pleas in law relied on by the Kingdom of Spain and the Italian Republic in support of their actions may be upheld, those actions must be dismissed. Costs 95 Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Council has requested that the Kingdom of Spain and the Italian Republic be ordered to pay the costs and they have been unsuccessful, each of them must be ordered to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council in Case C‑274/11 and Case C‑295/11, respectively. 96 Pursuant to Article 140(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Member States and institutions that have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the actions; 2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case C‑274/11; 3. Orders the Italian Republic to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case C‑295/11; 4. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the French Republic, the Republic of Latvia, Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Polish Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the European Parliament and the European Commission to pay their own costs. [Signatures] *Languages of the case: Spanish and Italian.