Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2003 in Case C-167/99: European Parliament v Société d'aménagement et d'équipement de la Région de Strasbourg (SERS) and Ville de Strasbourg (Arbitration clause — Late performance of a contract — Penalties for delay — Interim interest)
Date: 2003-06-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Alsace, European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), building industry, public building, town

7.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 135/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 10 April 2003

R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate Gen-
eral; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in which it:

in Case C-167/99: European Parliament v Société d’aména-
gement et d’équipement de la Région de Strasbourg
(SERS) and Ville de Strasbourg (1)

1. Declares that the application of the European Parliament and
the counterclaim of Ville de Strasbourg (France) and Société
d’équipement et d’aménagement de la Région de Strasbourg
(SERS) are admissible;

(Arbitration clause — Late performance of a contract —
Penalties for delay — Interim interest)

2. Declares that the Court has full jurisdiction in the case;

(2003/C 135/01)

3. Dismisses the counterclaim;

(Language of the case: French)

4. Annuls Title VII.1, Chapter A, Section 2(a) and (d) of the

opinion of the committee of conciliators of 22 March 1999;

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

In Case C-167/99, European Parliament (Agents: T. Millett and
O. Caisou-Rousseau) v Société d’aménagement et d’équipement
de la Région de Strasbourg (SERS), established in Strasbourg
(France) (represented by G. Alexandre) and Ville de Strasbourg
(represented by B. Alexandre): Application,
firstly, by the
European Parliament under Article 181 of the EC Treaty (now
Article 238 EC) for annulment of the opinion of the committee
of conciliators to which the parties appealed, and for the
payment of penalties for late performance, and, secondly, as a
counterclaim, by Société d’aménagement et d’équipement de
la Région de Strasbourg (SERS) and Ville de Strasbourg for
annulment in part of that opinion, the Court (Sixth Chamber),
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
composed of:

5.

Fixes the contractual date of completion of the buildings referred
to in the contract of 31 March 1994 between the European
Parliament, Ville de Strasbourg and Société d’équipement et
d’aménagement de la Région de Strasbourg (SERS) at 6 Febru-
ary 1998;

6. Orders Société d’équipement et d’aménagement de la Région de
Strasbourg (SERS)
in
clause 5.1 of that contract from 6 February 1998 in accordance
with the conditions laid down in that provision;

to pay the penalties provided for

7.

from payment of the
Exonerates the European Parliament
interim interest provided for in clause 6.3 of that contract for
the period from 10 May to 14 December 1998;

C 135/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.6.2003

8. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

9. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

( 1) OJ C 246 of 28.08.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 8 April 2003

in Case C-244/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesgerichtshof): Van Doren + Q.GmbH v Lifestyle
sports + sportswear Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Michael
Orth (1)

(Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 7(1) —
Exhaustion of the right conferred by the trade mark —
Evidence — Place where the goods are first placed on the
market by the trade mark proprietor or with his consent —
Consent of the trade mark proprietor to placing on the
market in the EEA)

(2003/C 135/02)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-244/00: Reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Bundesgerichtshof
(Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Van Doren + Q.GmbH and Lifestyle
sports + sportswear Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Michael Orth,
on the interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and
of Article 7(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of
21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member
States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), as amended
by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of
2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3), the Court, composed of:
G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet
and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann
(Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 8 April 2003, in which it has ruled:

A rule of evidence according to which exhaustion of the trade mark
right constitutes a plea in defence for a third party against whom the
trade mark proprietor brings an action, so that the existence of the
conditions for such exhaustion must, as a rule, be proved by the third
party who relies on it, is consistent with Community law and, in
particular, with Articles 5 and 7 of First Council Directive 89/104/
EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member

States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the
European Economic Area of 2 May 1992. However, the requirements
deriving from the protection of the free movement of goods enshrined,
inter alia, in Articles 28 EC and 30 EC may mean that this rule of
evidence needs to be qualified. Accordingly, where a third party
succeeds in establishing that there is a real risk of partitioning of
national markets if he himself bears that burden of proof, particularly
where the trade mark proprietor markets his products in the European
Economic Area using an exclusive distribution system, it is for the
proprietor of the trade mark to establish that the products were
initially placed on the market outside the European Economic Area
by him or with his consent. If such evidence is adduced, it is for the
third party to prove the consent of the trade mark proprietor to
subsequent marketing of the products in the European Economic
Area.

(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 10 April 2003

in Case C-305/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main): Christian
Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungsgesellschaft
Schulin

v

mbH (1)

(Plant varieties — System of protection — Article 14(3) of
Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 and Article 8 of Regulation
(EC) No 1768/95 — Use by farmers of the product of the
harvest — Obligation to provide information to the holder
of the Community right)

(2003/C 135/03)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-305/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) for
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Christian Schulin and Saatgut-Treuhandverwal-
tungsgesellschaft mbH, on the interpretation of the sixth
indent of Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/
94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ
1994 L 227, p. 1), and Article 8 of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on
the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of
Regulation No 2100/94 (OJ 1995 L 173, p. 14), the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward, S. von Bahr