Case C-325/06 PP: Appeal brought on 25 July 2006 by Galileo International Technology LLC, Galileo International LLC, Galileo Belgium SA, Galileo Danmark A/S, Galileo Deutschland GmbH, Galileo España, SA, Galileo France SARL, Galileo Nederland BV, Galileo Nordiska AB, Galileo Portugal Ltd, Galileo Sigma Srl, Galileo International Ltd, The Galileo Company, Timas Ltd (trading as Galileo Ireland) against the judgment delivered on 10 May 2006 in Case T-279/03 Galileo International Technology LLC and Others v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), brand name, indemnification, project of common interest, satellite navigation, trade-mark law

C 224/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2006

Action brought on 24 July 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Portugal

(Case C-324/06)

(2006/C 224/52)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Galileo Deutschland GmbH, Galileo España, SA, Galileo France
SARL, Galileo Nederland BV, Galileo Nordiska AB, Galileo
Portugal Ltd, Galileo Sigma Srl, Galileo International Ltd, The
Galileo Company, Timas Ltd (trading as Galileo Ireland) (repre-
sented by: J.-N. Louis and C. Delcorde, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Szmytkowska and P. Andrade, acting as Agents)

Form of order sought

Defendant: Republic of Portugal

Form of order sought

— Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
to comply with
administrative provisions necessary
Commission Directive 2004/116/EC (1) of 23 December
2004
to Council Directive
82/471/EEC as regards the inclusion of Candida guillier-
mondii or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission
of such measures, the Republic of Portugal has failed to
fulfil its obligations under that directive;

the Annex

amending

— order the Republic of Portugal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for implementing the directive expired on 30 June
2005.

— Set aside in its entirety the judgment of the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10
May 2006 in Case T-279/03 Galileo and Others v Commission
of the European Communities.

— Adjudicate on the basis of new provisions, and

I.

(a) Prohibit the Commission from making any use of
the word Galileo in connection with the satellite
radio navigation system project and order it
to
cease to induce, directly or indirectly, any third
parties whomsoever to use that word in connection
with that project and, last, prohibit it from partici-
pating in any way whatsoever in the use of that
word by a third party.

(b) Order the Commission to pay the applicants, jointly
and severally, the sum of EUR 50 million by way
of compensation for the material harm sustained.

(1) OJ 2004 L 379, p. 81.

II. In the alternative,

In the event that the Commission should persist in
using the word Galileo, order it to pay the applicants
the sum of EUR 240 million.

Appeal brought on 25 July 2006 by Galileo International
Technology LLC, Galileo International LLC, Galileo
Belgium SA, Galileo Danmark A/S, Galileo Deutschland
GmbH, Galileo España, SA, Galileo France SARL, Galileo
Nederland BV, Galileo Nordiska AB, Galileo Portugal Ltd,
Galileo Sigma Srl, Galileo International Ltd, The Galileo
Company, Timas Ltd (trading as Galileo Ireland) against
the judgment delivered on 10 May 2006 in Case T-279/03
Galileo International Technology LLC and Others v Commis-
sion of the European Communities

(Case C-325/06 PP)

(2006/C 224/53)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Galileo International Technology LLC, Galileo Inter-
national LLC, Galileo Belgium SA, Galileo Danmark A/S,

from the date of

III. Order the Commission to pay the applicants, with
the present
effect
application, default interest calculated by reference to
the reference rate of the ECB plus 2 percentage points
from the date on which the formal letter of 30 April
2001 was sent.

introduction of

IV. Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By their appeal, the appellants rely on the error which, in their
submission, the Court of First Instance made in making the
supply of goods or services on the market by the owner of the
trade mark a condition of recognition of the breach of its
rights within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Council Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade
mark (1) and Article 5(1) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of
21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member
States relating to trade marks (2).

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/29

They then challenge the restrictive interpretation of the concept
of ‘us[e] in the course of a trade’, in that that concept necessa-
rily envisages an activity of a commercial nature. In the appli-
cants submission, the judgment of the Court of First Instance is
also vitiated by contradictions on a number of points, in par-
ticular as regards the commercial or non-commercial purpose
of the ‘Galileo’ project and the certain or foreseeable nature of
the harm.

The appellants also criticise the Court of First Instance for
having failed to adjudicate in a satisfactory manner on the
arguments alleging harm to their trade and company names
and for having ignored the fact that Article 8 of the Paris
Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property of 20
March 1883, last revised at Stockholm on 14 July 1967 and
amended on 28 September 1979 (3), constitutes a binding
minimum basis.

Last, the appellants criticise the Court of First Instance for
having disregarded the rules applicable to the liability of the
Commission for an unlawful act. They maintain that a trade
mark right is a right of appropriation and not a right of crea-
tion.

(1) OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.
(3) United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 828, No 11847, p. 108.

Action brought on 25 July 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-326/06)

(2006/C 224/54)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

event, by not communicating those provisions to the
Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive;

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for adapting domestic law to Directive
2001/86/EC expired on 8 October 2004.

(1) OJ 2001 L 294, p. 22.

Action brought on 26 July 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-327/06)

(2006/C 224/55)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Enegren and L. Pignataro, Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2002/14/EC (1) establishing a general framework for
informing and consulting employees in the European Com-
munity or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to
the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 11 of that directive;

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Enegren and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive expired on 23
March 2005.

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by not adopting the provisions necessary to
comply with Council Directive 2001/86/EC of 8 October
2001 supplementing the Statute for a European company
with regard to the involvement of employees (1) and, in any

(1) OJ L 80, 23.3.2002, p. 29.