Case C-218/05: Action brought on 17 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Date: 2005-07-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, information system, maritime safety, maritime transport, national implementing measure, pollution from ships, transport of dangerous goods

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/31

Appeal brought on 17 May 2005 by Sergio Rossi SpA
against the judgment delivered on 1 March 2005 by the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-169/03 between Sergio
Rossi SpA and the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-214/05 P)

(2005/C 182/54)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 1 March 2005 by
the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities in Case T-169/03 between Sergio Rossi
SpA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM) was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 May
2005 by Sergio Rossi SpA, represented by A. Ruo of the
Alicante Bar (Spain).

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1. set aside in full the judgment under appeal for infringement
of Articles 8 and 73 of Council Regulation (EC) No
40/94 (1) and Articles 44(1) and 81 of the Rules of Proce-
dure of the Court of First Instance;

2.

3.

in the alternative, set aside in part the judgment under
appeal only as regards the registration of the trade mark
SISSI ROSSI in respect of ‘leather and imitations of leather’;

in the further alternative, uphold the right
to produce
evidence, set aside in full the judgment under appeal and
refer the present dispute back to the Court of First Instance
for it to examine the evidence held to be inadmissible or, in
the alternative and, pursuant to the right to be heard under
Article 73 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94, refer the
present dispute to the Board of Appeal of OHIM for it to set
a time-limit within which the parties can present
their
comments;

4. order the respondent as the unsuccessful party to pay the
costs pursuant to Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal is flawed
in that it infringes the following rules:

1. Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
Instance in that the judgment under appeal does not state
reasons in respect of the primary claim made in the action.

in the opinion of the appellant should have been accepted,
was held to be inadmissible; in the alternative, the appellant
submits that Article 73 of Council Regulation (EC) No
40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark
was infringed in that, in the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal of OHIM, the appellant was not given the opportu-
nity to present its comments on whether or not the goods
in question are similar.

3. Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20
December 1993 on the Community trade mark in that the
marks Miss Rossi and Sissi Rossi should be regarded as
incompatible. Given the similarity of both the goods and
the marks the question of whether there is a likelihood of
confusion between those marks within the meaning of that
article should be reconsidered.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Action brought on 17 May 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-218/05)

(2005/C 182/55)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 May
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by K. Simonsson and C. Loggi, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel
traffic monitoring and information system and repealing
Council Directive 93/75/EEC (1) or, in any event, by failing
to communicate to the Commission tht it had done so, the
Italan Republic has failed to fulfil
its oblgations under
Article 29 of that directive.

2. Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
Instance in that evidence produced by the appellant, which

(2) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

C 182/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.7.2005

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The time-limit
2004.

for transposing the dirctive was 5 February

(1) OJ L 208 of 05.08.2002, p. 10.

Action brought on 18 May 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

— The Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil

subject

to treatment which is more rigorous

its obligations
under Articles 4 and 5 of the directive. Those two articles
require that, by 31 December 1998 at the latest, urban
waste water from agglomerations of more than 10 000
inhabitants is to be subject to treatment which is more
rigorous than secondary treatment before being discharged
in sensitive areas. However, not all waste water from Sueca
is
than
secondary treatment before being discharged into a sensi-
tive area in the sea. Nor is most of the waste water from
the agglomerations of the region of La Ribera subject to
appropriate treatment before being discharged into the
same sensitive area. The coastal districts of Sueca (El
Perelló, Las Palmeres, Mareny de Barraquetes, Playa del Rey
and Boga de Mar), with a population in summer of 37 000
— 51 000 persons, only subject their water to secondary
treatment before it is discharged into the same sensitive
area.

(Case C-219/05)

(1) OJ L 135 of 30.05.1991, p. 40

(2005/C 182/56)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 May
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by D. Recchia, Agent, J. Rivas-Andrés and J. Gutiérrez
Gisbert, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to subject the urban waste water
its districts and certain municipalities of La
from Sueca,
Ribera (Valencia) to appropriate treatment before dischar-
ging it in an area declared sensitive, the Kingdom of Spain
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4 and
5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1) of 21 May 1991
concerning urban waste-water treatment;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil

its obligations
under Article 3 of the directive. In accordance with that
article, Member States are to ensure that collecting systems
are provided at
the latest by 31 December 1998 for
agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than
10 000 when they discharge urban waste waters into
receiving waters which are considered ‘sensitive areas’. Both
the agglomeration of Sueca and the majority of the agglom-
erations of the region of La Ribera in the province of
Valencia have a population equivalent of more than 10 000
and discharge their water into an area which has been
declared ‘sensitive’. However, they have not yet provided
collecting systems for all the waste water of those towns.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches
Verwaltungsgericht München by order of that court of
4 May 2005 in Daniel Halbritter v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-227/05)

(2005/C 182/57)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bayerisches Verwaltungsger-
icht München (Germany) of 23 May 2005, received at the
Court Registry on 4 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Daniel Halbritter and Freistaat Bayern on
the following questions:

1. Is Article 1(2) in conjunction with Article 8(2) and (4) of
Directive 91/439/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a
Member State within its territory is precluded from refusing
to recognise a right to drive under a driving licence issued
by another Member State even where, in the territory of the
first Member State, a measure withdrawing or cancelling a
driving licence issued by that State has been taken against
the holder of the driving licence, if the ban on obtaining a
new driving licence in that Member State, with which that
measure was coupled, had expired before the driving licence
was issued by the other Member State and