Case C-111/04 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  16 February 2006  — Adriatica di Navigazione SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Competition — Cartels — Agreement between undertakings — Proof of participation of an undertaking in a cartel)
Date: 2006-07-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), appeal, competition law, fixing of prices, maritime transport, price agreement, restrictive trade practice

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2006 —
Audi AG v OHIM

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 February 2006
— Adriatica di Navigazione SpA v Commission of the
European Communities

(Case C-82/04 P) (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark ‘TDI’ —
Refusal of registration — Appeal which has become devoid
of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

(2006/C 154/01)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Audi AG (represented by: L. von Zumbusch, avocat)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)
(represented by: G. Schneider,
Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber) of 3 December 2003 in Case T-16/02 Audi
v OHIM dismissing the action brought against decision R
652/2000-1 of
the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8
November 2001 refusing registration as a Community trade
mark of the word sign ‘TDI’ for certain goods in classes 12 and
37 — Descriptive nature as absolute ground for refusal —
Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20
December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11,
p. 1)

Operative part of the order

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal brought by Audi

AG;

2. Audi AG is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.04.2004.

(Case C-111/04 P) (1)

(Appeal — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1)
EC) — Competition — Cartels — Agreement between under-
takings — Proof of participation of an undertaking in a
cartel)

(2006/C 154/02)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Adriatica di Navigazione SpA (represented by: M.
Siragusa and F. Moretti, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Pignataro, Agents,
assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2003 in Case T-61/
99 Adriatica
v Commission dismissing as
unfounded an action for annulment of the Commission's deci-
sion of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding under
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34466 — Greek Ferry Boats)

di Navigazione

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. The cross-appeal of the Commission of the European Communities

is dismissed;

3. Adriatica di Navigazione SpA shall pay 90 % of the costs;

C 154/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.7.2006

4. The Commission of the European Communities shall pay 10 % of

the costs.

(1) OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 February 2006
— Deutsche Post AG, DHL Express (Italy) Srl, formerly
DHL International Srl v Commission of the European
Communities, Italian Republic, Poste Italiane SpA

(Case C-367/04 P) (1)

(Appeal — Aid granted by the Italian authorities in favour
of Poste Italiane)

Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Korneuburg) — Plato Plastik Robert Frank GmbH v Caro-
pack Handelsgesellschaft mbH

(Case C-26/05) (1)

(Second paragraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Proce-
dure — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging
waste — Concepts of producer of packaging and producer of
packaging materials — producer of plastic carrier bags)

(2006/C 154/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties

(2006/C 154/03)

Language of the case: German

Applicant: Plato Plastik Robert Frank GmbH

Defendant: Caropack Handelsgesellschaft mbH

Parties

Re:

Applicants: Deutsche Post AG, DHL Express (Italy) Srl, formerly
DHL International Srl
J. Sedemund and T.
(represented by:
Lübbig, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and M. Niejahr,
Agents), Italian Republic (represented by I. Braguglia, Agent,
and D. Del Gaizo, avocat), Poste Italiane SpA (represented by:
A. Sandulli, A. Fratini and B. O'Connor, avocats)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second
Chamber, Extended Composition) of 27 May 2004 in Case T-
358/02 Deutsche Post and DHL International Srl v Commission
dismissing as
inadmissible the action for annulment of
Commission Decision 2002/782/EC of 12 March 2002 on the
State aid granted by Italy to Poste Italiane SpA (formerly Ente
Poste Italiane) (OJ 2002 L 282, p.29)

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Deutsche Post AG and DHL Express (Italy) Srl, formerly DHL

International Srl, are ordered to pay the costs;

3. The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Korneu-
burg — Interpretation of Article 3 of European Parliament and
Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packa-
ging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p.10) — Concepts
of producers of grouped, sales or transport packaging and
suppliers of packaging materials — Producer of plastic carrier
bags

Operative part of the order

1. Article 3(1) and (11) of European Parliament and Council Direc-
tive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packa-
ging waste must be interpreted as meaning that the producer of
packaging is not necessarily the party who puts goods together, or
causes them to be put together with the product intended as packa-
ging. The producer of plastic carrier bags handed to customers free
of charge or for a price in shops must be considered as being a
producer of packaging.

2. Directive 94/62 must be interpreted as meaning that it is does
not preclude the national
legislation, such as the decree of the
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Youth and Family Affairs
on the avoidance and recovery of packaging waste and certain
product waste and the setting-up of collection and recovery systems
which provides
in particular
plastic carrier bags must either accept the return of the bags after
use or participate in a collection and recovery system of packaging
waste unless a party further down the distribution chain takes over
that obligation and the producer obtains a valid declaration on
that matter.

the producer of packaging,

that

(1) OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.

(1) OJ C 82 of 02.04.2005