Case C-315/04 P: Appeal brought on 23 July 2004 (14 July 2004 by fax) by Raffaele Dipace against the order made on 1 April 2004 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-106/04 between Raffaele Dipace and the Italian Republic
Date: 2005-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), appeal

C 217/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2005

(Agents: C. Pesendorfer, W. Okresek and H. Dossi), by
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Schie-
ferer) and by Republic of Finland (Agents: T. Pynnä and A.
Guimaraes-Purokoski) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, R. Schingten
(Rapporteur) and P. Kūris, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 12 April 2005, the
operative part of which is as follows

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. DLD Trading Co. shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 94, 17.04.2004.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-420/04 P: Georgios Gouvras v Commission of
the European Communities (1)

(Appeal — Officials — Posting — Secondment in the inter-
ests of the service — Retrospective change of place of
employment and of the financial entitlements relating to it
— Recovery of sum not due)

(2005/C 217/47)

(Language of the case: French)

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 14 June 2005

J.-N. Louis),

the Commission of

In Case C-420/04 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of
the Court of Justice lodged on 29 September 2004 by Georgios
Gouvras, an official of
the European
Communities (lawyer:
the other party to the
proceedings being the Commission of the European Commu-
nities (Agents: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios) — the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the
Chamber (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet and S. von Bahr, Judges;
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an
order on 14 July 2005, the operative part of which is as
follows:

in Case C-358/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale di Vicenza in Caseificio Valdagnese Srl v
Regione Veneto (1)

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Gouvras shall pay the costs.

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)

(1) OJ C 284 of 20.11.2004.

(2005/C 217/46)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Case C-358/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Tribunale di Vicenza (Italy), made by
decision of 2 August 2004, received at the Court on 17 August
2004, in the proceedings between Caseificio Valdagnese Srl
and Regione Veneto — the Court
(Fourth Chamber),
composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric
Judges; M. Poiares
(Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order
on 14 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

The reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Tribunale di
Vicenza by decision of 2 August 2004 is manifestly inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 273, 06.11.2004.

Appeal brought on 23 July 2004 (14 July 2004 by fax) by
Raffaele Dipace against the order made on 1 April 2004
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-106/04
between Raffaele Dipace and the Italian Republic

(Case C-315/04 P)

(2005/C 217/48)

(Language of the case: Italian)

the Court of First

An appeal against the order made on 1 April 2004 by the First
Chamber of
the European
Communities in Case T-106/04 between Raffaele Dipace and
the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 23 July 2004 (14 July 2004 by
fax) by Raffaele Dipace.

Instance of

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/25

By order of 3 March 2005, the Court of Justice of the European
Communities
(Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and
ordered Mr Dipace to bear his own costs.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of
Appeal, Brussels by order of that court of 30 May 2005 in
BVBA Management Training en Consultancy v Benelux-
Merkenbureau

(Case C-239/05)

(2005/C 217/50)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of The Court of Appeal, Brussels
of 30 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 3 June
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
BVBA Management Training en Consultancy and Benelux-
Merkenbureau on the following questions:

1. Is the trade mark authority required, after its examination of
all relevant facts and circumstances concerning an absolute
ground of refusal, to state in its provisional and in its defini-
tive decision on the application its conclusion in regard to
each of the goods and services separately in respect of
which trade mark protection is sought?

2. May the relevant facts and circumstances to be taken into
account by the adjudicating authority in the event of an
appeal against the decision of the trade mark authority be
different as a result of a lapse of time between the two dates
on which the decisions are made or must the adjudicating
authority only take account of such facts and circumstances
as were available at
the moment when the trade mark
authority made its decision?

3. Does the interpretation by the Court of Justice in the Post-
kantoor (1) judgment preclude national legislation in regard
to the competence of the adjudicating authority from being
construed as meaning that that authority is prevented from
taking account of any alteration in the relevant facts and
circumstances or from ruling on the distinctive character of
the mark for each of the goods and services in themselves?

(1) Case C-363/99, Koninklijke KPN Nederland, dated 12.02.2004.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden by order of that court of 22 April 2005
in case of Twoh International BV v Inspecteur van de
Belastingdienst

(Case C-184/05)

(2005/C 217/49)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
(Netherlands) of 22 April 2005, received at the Court Registry
on 25 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Twoh International BV and Inspecteur van de Belas-
tingdienst on the following question:

Is Article 28c A (a) of the Sixth Directive (1) — in conjunction
with the mutual assistance directive (2) and the Regulation (3) —
to be interpreted as meaning that, if no relevant information
has been provided voluntarily by the Member State of arrival,
the Member State of the dispatch or transport of the goods
must request
the alleged Member State of arrival of those
goods to provide information and must take the results of that
request
the
dispatch or transport of the goods?

into account when examining the evidence of

(1) Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (OJ L 145, p. 1).
(2) Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 (OJ L 336, p.

15), as amended by Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ L 76, p. 1).

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 of 27 January 1992 (OJ L 24,

p. 1).