Case C-108/06: Action brought on  23 February 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
Date: 2006-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental impact, environmental law, impact study

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/3

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vicente Pascual García

Defendant: Confederación Hidrográfica del Duero

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings: Sodipan SCA, intervener

Form of order sought

Questions referred

— Set aside the judgment under appeal.

1. Does the principle of equal treatment, which prohibits any
discrimination whatsoever on grounds of age, laid down in
Article 13 of the Treaty and Article 2 (1) of Directive
2000/78 (1), preclude a national
law (specifically the first
paragraph of
the Single Transitional Provision of Law
14/2005 on clauses in collective agreements concerning the
attainment of normal retirement age), pursuant to which
compulsory retirement clauses contained in collective agree-
ments are lawful, where such clauses provide as sole
requirements that workers should have reached normal
retirement age and have satisfied the conditions set out in
the social security legislation of the Spanish State for entitle-
ment to draw a retirement pension under their contribution
regime, whereas, for future agreements to be able to provide
for termination of the contract on grounds of age,
the
undertaking must also link such termination to an employ-
ment policy?

2. Does the principle of equal treatment, which prohibits any
discrimination whatsoever on grounds of age, laid down in
Article 13 of the Treaty and Article 2 (1) of Directive
2000/78, require this Court, as a national court, not to
apply to this case the first paragraph of the Single Transi-
tional Provision of Law 14/2005?

— Grant the forms of order sought by the appellant in the
proceedings at first instance and annul the decision of the
OHIM First Board of Appeal of 16 July 2004 in Case
R0699/2003-1.

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the judgment under appeal was given
contrary to Article 8(1)(b) and (2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No
40/94 (1), which provides that ‘… the trade mark applied for
shall not be registered if because of its identity with or simi-
larity to the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of
the goods or services covered by the trade marks there exists a
likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory
in which the earlier trade mark is protected …’. The court has
in fact misapplied the concept of the likelihood of confusion,
as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities.

According to the appellant, the trade marks which are the
subject of the present dispute are not likely to be confused with
each other in view of the clear phonetic, visual, graphic and
conceptual differences.

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a
general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupa-
tion (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

(1) OJ L 11, 14/01/1994, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 10 February 2006 by Soffass SpA
against the judgment delivered on 23 November 2005 in
Case T-396/04 Soffass SpA v Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (OHIM)

Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-92/06 P)

(2006/C 121/05)

Language of the case: Italian

(Case C-108/06)

(2006/C 121/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: H. van Vliet and F. Simonetti, as Agents)

Appellant: Soffass SpA (represented by: V. Bilardo, C. Bacchini
and M. Mazzitelli, Avvocati)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

C 121/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2006

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2001/42/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of certain plans
and programs on the environment or in any event by
failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of
the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
directive;

— order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

as soon as possible, and the necessary procedure of
after-care and management will be followed,

the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations
under Articles 4 and 8 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (1)
of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Directive
91/156/EEC (2), and Article 14(b) of Council Directive
1999/31/EC (3) of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste;

(b) order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

The period for implementing the directive in national
expired on 21 July 2004.

law

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30.

Action brought on 24 February 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-112/06)

(2006/C 121/07)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Konstantinidis)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant asks the Court to:

(a) declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to

ensure that:

— the waste in the landfill sites of Mesomouri and Kour-
oupitos in Crete is disposed of without endangering
human health or the environment,

— the waste in the landfill sites of Mesomouri and Kour-
oupitos is handled by a private or public waste collector
or by an undertaking which carries out waste disposal
operations,

— the landfill site at Mesomouri, which has not been
authorised to continue operating, will cease operating

1. The applicant considers that the disposal of waste at the
Mesomouri and Kouroupitos, Crete, sites is taking place in
infringement of the Hellenic Republic's obligations under
Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 75/442 on waste, as amended
by Directive 91/156/EEC, and under Article 14(b) of Direc-
tive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste.

2. As regards the uncontrolled disposal of waste at Mesomouri,
the conclusions of the report of the Commission's experts
showed that the tipping of 90 000 tonnes of waste at the
site endangers human health and is likely to harm the envir-
onment. In addition, the Commission stresses that the Greek
authorities have not taken the measures necessary to ensure
that the waste tipped at Mesomouri will be handled by a
private or public waste collector or by an undertaking
which carries out waste disposal operations.

The Commission adds that
the Greek authorities have
decided that the Mesomouri site ought to cease operating,
finding it essential to restore it and to lay down specific
requirements for subsequent after-care and management of
the site. Nevertheless,
include a
specific timetable for compliance and has not yet been put
into effect on account of lack of resources.

that decision does not

3. As regards the old tip at Kouroupitos, the Commission's
experts' report showed that the site has not been restored
and stresses the likely risks to human health and the envir-
onment. The report refers in particular to the fact that there
is: 1. leaching of a large part of the earth cover; 2. insuffi-
cient stability and resistance to deterioration; and 3. incin-
eration of the existing waste in the tip, which can lead to
toxic emissions. At the same time the Greek authorities
have not taken the necessary measures to ensure that the
waste at Kouroupitos will be handled by a private or public
waste collector or by an undertaking which carries out
waste disposal operations.

(1) OJ L 194 of 25.07.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78 of 26.03.1991, p. 32.
(3) OJ L 182 of 16.07.99, p. 1.