Case C-63/02: Action brought on 26 February 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2002-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, drinking water, human nutrition, hydraulic works, water supply

4.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 109/31

Action brought on 26 February 2002 by the Commission
the United
of

the European Communities against
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-63/02)

(2002/C 109/53)

Appeal brought on 27 February 2002 by the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) against the judgment delivered on 11 December
2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-138/00 between
Erpo Möbelwerke GmbH and the Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 26 February 2002 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Michael Shotter, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by failing to adopt for Northern Ireland
and Wales all the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water
intended for human consumption (1) or, in any event, by
failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(1) and
17(2) of this directive;

(Case C-64/02 P)

(2002/C 109/54)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 December
2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-138/00 between Erpo
Möbelwerke GmbH and the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (1) was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
27 February 2002 by the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), represented by
Alexander von Mühlendahl, Vice-President of the Office, and
Gregor Schneider, member of the Legal Services and Court
Proceedings Unit of the Legal Department.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

— set aside the contested judgment;

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
expired on 25 December 2000 without the United Kingdom
having informed the Commission of the provisions adopted to
comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of the
Commission as regards Wales and Northern Ireland.

Since the Commission is in possession of no other information
enabling it to conclude that the United Kingdom has adopted
the necessary provisions, it is compelled to assume that the
UK has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive.

(1) OJ L 330, 05.12.1998, p. 32.

— dismiss the action against the decision of the Third Board
of Appeal of 23 March 2000 in Case R 392/1999-3, or
alternatively refer the proceedings back to the Court of
First Instance;

— order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs
both of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal
proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the Court of First

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation
No 40/94 (2):
Instance applied a new
examination criterion in the contested judgment. The Office
considers that to limit the possibility of refusing a trade mark
application to cases in which general use amongst the class of
persons concerned is proved constitutes a legally erroneous
interpretation of Article 7(1)(b). If it were possible to refuse an
application for a trade mark only if that mark, or at all events
signs portrayed in the same way, were shown to be already