Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 December 2004 in Case C-42/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Conservation and management of resources — Control measures for fishing activities)
Date: 2005-01-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, catch quota, fishing controls, fishing regulations

22.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/3

3. In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Article 3
of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version updated by Regulation
No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 2195/91, does not
preclude a competent institution, when examining entitlement to
unemployment benefit, from not taking into account,
in calcu-
lating periods of insurance completed, a period of compulsory mili-
tary service performed in another Member State.

(1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 30 November 2004

1. Article 7(1) 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, must be interpreted as
meaning that goods bearing a trade mark cannot be regarded as
having been put on the market in the European Economic Area
where the proprietor of the trade mark has imported them into the
European Economic Area with a view to selling them there or
where he has offered them for sale to consumers in the European
Economic Area,
in his own shops or those of an associated
company, without actually selling them.

2. In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the stipu-
lation, in a contract of sale concluded between the proprietor of the
trade mark and an operator established in the European Economic
Area, of a prohibition on reselling in the European Economic
Area does not mean that there is no putting on the market in the
European Economic Area within the meaning of Article 7(1) of
Directive 89/104, as amended by the Agreement on the European
Economic Area, and thus does not preclude the exhaustion of the
proprietor's exclusive rights in the event of resale in the European
Economic Area in breach of the prohibition.

in Case C-16/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hovrätten över Skåne och Blekinge): Peak Holding AB
v Axolin-Elinor AB (1)

(1) OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.

(Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 7(1) —
Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark —
Putting on the market of the goods in the EEA by the
proprietor of the trade mark — Concept — Goods offered for
sale to consumers and then withdrawn — Sale to an operator
established in the EEA with the obligation to put the goods
on the market outside the EEA — Resale of the goods to
another operator established in the EEA — Marketing in the
EEA)

(2005/C 19/04)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

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

In Case C-16/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Hovrätten över Skåne och Blekinge
(Sweden), made by decision of 19 December 2002, received at
the Court on 15 January 2003,
in the proceedings between
Peak Holding AB and Axolin-Elinor AB, formerly Handelskom-
paniet Factory Outlet i Löddeköpinge AB – the Court (Grand
Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A.
Timmermans, A. Rosas and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Presidents of
Chambers, C. Gulmann
Puissochet,
R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 November 2004,
in
which it has ruled:

(Rapporteur),

J.-P.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 2 December 2004

in Case C-42/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Conserva-
tion and management of resources — Control measures for
fishing activities)

(2005/C 19/05)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

In Case C-42/03: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: T. van Rijn and S. Pardo Quintillán) v Kingdom of
Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) – ACTION under Article 226 EC
for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 4 February 2003 –
the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President
of Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, J. Male-
novský and U. Lõhmus,
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 December
2004, in which it:

C 19/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.1.2005

1. Declares that, for each fishing year 1990 to 1997, by failing:

— to adopt the appropriate methods for the use of the quotas
assigned to it and to carry out the inspections and other
checks required by the applicable Community regulations,

— provisionally to prohibit

fishing upon exhaustion of

the

quotas, and

— to take all penal or administrative measures which it was
required to apply to masters of vessels infringing those regula-
tions or to any other person liable for such infringement,

the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25
January 1983 establishing a Community system for the conserva-
tion and management of fishery resources, Article 9(2) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 estab-
lishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture, Articles
1 and 11(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87
of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control measures for fishing
activities and Articles 2, 21(1) and (2) and 31 of Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a
control system applicable to the common fisheries policy.

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

(1) OJ C 101, 26.4.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 25 November 2004

in Case C-109/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): KPN
Telecom BVv Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunicatie
Autoriteit (OPTA) (1)

(Telecommunications — Directive 98/10/EC — Application
of open network provision to voice telephony — Supply of
information on subscribers — Determination of prices)

(2005/C 19/06)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

sleven (Netherlands), by decision of 8 January 2003, received at
the Court on 10 March 2003, in the proceedings between KPN
Telecom BV and Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunicatie
Autoriteit (OPTA), in the presence of: Denda Multimedia BV,
Denda Directory Services BV – the Court
(First Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, A.
Rosas, K. Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann, Judges; M.
Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
judgment on
the Registrar, has given a
Registrar,
25 November 2004, in which it has ruled:

for

1. Article 6(3) of Directive 98/10/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 26 February 1998 on the application of
open network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal
service for telecommunications in a competitive environment must
be interpreted as meaning that the words ‘relevant information’
refer only to data relating to subscribers who have not expressly
objected to being listed in a published directory and which are
sufficient to enable users of a directory to identify the subscribers
they are looking for. Those data include in principle the name and
address, including postcode, of subscribers, together with any tele-
phone numbers allocated to them by the
entity concerned.
However, it is open to the Member States to provide that other
data are to be made available to users where, in light of specific
national circumstances, they appear to be necessary in order to
identify subscribers.

2. Article 6(3) of Directive 98/10, in so far as it provides that the
relevant information must be provided to third parties on terms
which are fair, cost oriented and non-discriminatory, must be
interpreted as meaning that:

— with regard to data such as the name and address of the
persons and the telephone number allocated to them, only the
costs of actually making those data available to third parties
may be invoiced by the supplier of the universal service;

— with regard to additional data which such a supplier is not
bound to make available to third parties,
the supplier is
entitled to invoice, apart from the costs of making that provi-
sion, the additional costs which he has had to bear himself in
obtaining the data provided that those third parties are treated
in a non-discriminatory manner.

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

(1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.

In Case C-109/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijf-