Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2001 in Case C-374/99: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year — Aid for consumption of olive oil — Premiums for sheep and goats)
Date: 2001-10-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for annulment (EU), agricultural expenditure, budgetary control, financial year

27.10.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303/3

1. Where the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (‘the TRIPs Agreement’), as set out in Annex 1
C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation,
approved on behalf of the Community, as regards matters
within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of
22 December 1994, became applicable in the Member State
concerned at a time when the court of first instance has heard
the case but not yet delivered its decision, Article 50 of the TRIPs
Agreement is applicable to the extent that the infringement of
intellectual property rights continues beyond the date on which
the TRIPs Agreement became applicable with regard to the
Community and the Member States.

2.

the TRIPs
The procedural requirements of Article 50 of
Agreement, and in particular Article 50(6), are not such as to
create rights upon which individuals may rely directly before the
Community courts and the courts of
the Member States.
Nevertheless, where the judicial authorities are called upon to
apply national
rules with a view to ordering provisional
measures for the protection of intellectual property rights falling
within a field to which the TRIPs Agreement applies and in
respect of which the Community has already legislated, they are
required to do so as far as possible in the light of the wording
and purpose of Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement, taking
account, more particularly, of all the circumstances of the case
before them, so as to ensure that a balance is struck between the
competing rights and obligations of the intellectual property
right holder and of the defendant.

3. Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement is to be interpreted as
meaning that a request by the defendant is necessary in order
for the provisional measures ordered by way of interim relief to
lapse on the ground that no substantive action has been brought
either within the period prescribed in the provisional measures
or, where no period is prescribed, within 20 working days or
31 calendar days, whichever is the longer period.

4.

5.

is to start,

In the absence of any provision in the TRIPs Agreement
concerning the point in time at which the period of 20 working
days or 31 calendar days prescribed by Article 50(6) of that
agreement
is for each contracting party to
determine when that period is to start, provided always that it
is ‘reasonable’ having regard to the circumstances of each case
and taking into account the balance to be struck between the
competing rights and obligations of the intellectual property
right holder and of the defendant.

it

In the absence of any Community rule on the point and in
accordance with Article 1(1) of the TRIPs Agreement, it is for
each Member State to determine the limits of the powers of the
judicial
provisional measures.
ordering
Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement neither requires nor

authorities

in

forbids the legal order of a Member State to provide, where
appropriate, that its judicial authorities are to determine of their
own motion the period within which substantive proceedings
are to be instituted at the same time as ordering provisional
measures, without any request by the defendant being necessary
for that purpose.

6. Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement neither requires nor
forbids the Member States to provide, where appropriate, that
its judicial authorities are to determine of their own motion the
period within which substantive proceedings are to be instituted.
Since the provision in question is silent on that point, the scope
of the powers conferred on appellate courts in that regard falls
within the competence of each Member State.

(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 13 September 2001

in Case C-374/99: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year
— Aid for consumption of olive oil — Premiums for sheep
and goats)

(2001/C 303/03)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-374/99: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: M. Lo´ pez-Monı´s
Gallego) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
J. Guerra Ferna´ndez) — application for partial annulment of
Commission Decision 1999/596/EC of 28 July 1999
amending Decision 1999/187/EC on the clearance of the
accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the
expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1999
L 226, p. 26) in so far as it relates to the Kingdom of Spain —
the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevo´ n, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 Sep-
tember 2001, in which it:

C 303/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.10.2001

1. Dismisses the application;

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.

(Fifth Chamber)

of 13 September 2001

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 13 September 2001

in Case C-417/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)

(Failure by a State to comply with its obligations —
Directive 96/62/EC — Ambient air quality assessment
and management — Failure to designate the competent
authorities and bodies responsible for implementing the
directive)

in Case C-375/99: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Expenditure for 1996
and 1997 — Public storage of bovine meat)

(2001/C 303/05)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(2001/C 303/04)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-375/99: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: M. Lo´ pez-Monı´s
Gallego) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
J. Guerra Ferna´ndez) — application for the partial annulment
of Commission Decision 1999/603/EC of 28 July 1999
excluding from Community financing certain expenditure
incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of
the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(EAGGF) (OJ 1999 L 234, p. 6), in respect of the financial
adjustment imposed of 5 % of certain expenditure declared by
Spain under tariff headings 2111 (technical expenditure),
2112 (financial expenditure) and 2113 (other expenditure),
corresponding to the sector for public storage of bovine meat
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rappor-
teur), S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geel-
hoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 13 September 2001, in which it:

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-417/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı´az
Abad) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
designate the competent authorities and bodies referred to in
the first paragraph of Article 3 of Council Directive 96/62/EC
of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and
management (OJ 1996 L 296, p. 55), the Kingdom of Spain
has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under that directive —
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
the Court
President of
the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),
P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 13 September 2001, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
designate the competent authorities and bodies referred to in the
first paragraph of Article 3 of Council Directive 96/62/EC of
27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and
management, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive;

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.

(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.