Case C-323/02: Action brought on 16 September 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against Hydrowatt SARL ("Hydrowatt")
Date: 2002-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, action for annulment (EU), contract, electrical energy, national law, redemption

23.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 289/11

1. Do Paragraphs 16 and 18 of the Sozialgesetzbuch (Code
of Social Law) relating to statutory sickness insurance
(‘SGB V’), which in this country make reimbursement of
the costs of dental treatment carried out by a dentist in
another Member State subject to authorisation based on
the merits of the case by the insured person’s social
security institution, infringe Articles 59 and 60 of the
EC Treaty, even where the national statutory sickness
insurance scheme is based on the benefit-in-kind principle
(and not, as in Case C-158/96 Kohll v Union des caisses
de maladie (1), on the cost-reimbursement principle)?

2.

If, depending on the answer to Question 1, the defendant
were to be required, for reasons connected with Com-
munity law, to reimburse the costs of the dental treatment
(in this case provided in the Republic of Austria), is the
amount of the claim for reimbursement governed by the
costs actually incurred or is that amount restricted to the
rates applicable under the national sickness insurance
scheme (in this case that of the Federal Republic of
Germany)?

( 1) European Court Reports 1998, page I-01931.

Action brought on 16 September 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against Hydrowatt
SARL (‘Hydrowatt’)

(Case C-323/02)

(2002/C 289/18)

An action against Hydrowatt Sarl (‘Hydrowatt’) was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
16 September 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agent and
E. Cabau, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should order Hydrowatt to:

— pay

to the Commission the principal

25 109 euros,
23 422,91 euros, making a total of 48 531,91 euros;

together with default

sum of
interest of

— pay the Commission’s costs in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action seeks reimbursement of the part of a subsidy
awarded under a contract for the completion of a project ‘New

group with turbine and generator adapted for low heads’,
which was terminated by Commission under Article 8. The
contract is governed by French law and the parties have agreed
to submit any disputes to the Court of Justice of the European
Communities.

Appeal brought on 18 September 2002 (faxed on 12 Sep-
tember 2002) by SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH
against the judgment delivered on 2 July 2002 by the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-323/00 between SAT.1
SatellitenFernsehen GmbH and the Office for Harmonis-
ation of the Internal Market

(Case C-329/02 P)

(2002/C 289/19)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 2 July 2002 by
the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-323/00 between SAT.1
SatellitenFernsehen GmbH and the Office for Harmonisation
of the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
18 September 2002 (faxed on 12 September 2002) by
SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH, represented by Reinhard
Schneider, Rechtsanwalt, Büsing, Müffelmann and Theye,
Marktstraße 3, D-28195 Bremen, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.

set aside the contested judgment (1),
in so far as it
dismissed the action (2) as formulated in the form of order
sought;

2.

order the Office to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation
No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (‘the Regu-
lation’):
the Court erred in law in finding that
Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation also pursues the general
interest objective of allowing signs covered by that
provision to be used freely by everyone. There is,
however, no evident reason to assume that indications
which are merely not suitable for distinguishing goods or
services according to their origin must be available for
free use. In the present case it was therefore necessary for
the Court to examine whether the compound sign ‘SAT.2’