Case C-191/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Special protection area — Alteration without scientific basis)
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Portugal, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, bird, protected area, protection of animal life

C 224/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2006

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(f) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment, must be interpreted as meaning that the provision
of call centre services to a telephone bookmaking organiser, which
entails the staff of the supplier of those services accepting bets on
behalf of
the organiser, does not constitute a betting transaction
within the meaning of that provision and cannot, therefore, qualify for
the exemption from VAT laid down by that provision.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.

matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Multiple defendants — Action
brought in a Contracting State against a first defendant domi-
ciled in that State and a co-defendant domiciled in another
Contracting State — Inadmissibility of the action against that
first defendant, the subject of bankruptcy proceedings — Juris-
diction of the court seised in relation to the co-defendant

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22
December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement
of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as
meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings,
that provision may be relied on in the context of an action brought in
a Member State against a defendant domiciled in that State and a
co-defendant domiciled in another Member State even when that
action is regarded under a national provision as inadmissible from the
time it is brought in relation to the first defendant.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Reisch Montage AG v Kiesel
Baumaschinen Handels GmbH

(1) OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.

(Case C-103/05) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 6(1) — Cases where
there is more than one defendant — Action brought in a
Member State against a person domiciled in that State who is
the subject of bankruptcy proceedings and a co-defendant
domiciled in another Member State — Inadmissibility of the
action against the person who is the subject of bankruptcy
proceedings — Jurisdiction of the court seised in relation to
the co-defendant)

(2006/C 224/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Reisch Montage AG

Defendant: Kiesel Baumaschinen Handels GmbH

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 July 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v Portu-
guese Republic

(Case C-191/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Special protec-
tion area — Alteration without scientific basis)

(2006/C 224/22)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. van Beek and A. Caeiros, Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes,
Agent)

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof —
Interpretation of Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No
44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recog-
nition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1)
— Special protection area — Alteration without scientific basis

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/13

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that, by altering the demarcation of the ‘Moura, Mourão,
Barrancos’ Special Protection Area, thereby excluding from it areas
providing a habitat for species of wild birds for whose protection
that area was designated, the Portuguese Republic has failed to
fulfil
its obligations under Article 4(1) of Council Directive
79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds;

2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.

Division refusing to register as a Community word mark ‘SISSI
ROSSI’ in respect of goods in classes 14, 15, 5 and 26

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Sergio Rossi SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2006 —
Sergio Rossi SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sissi
Rossi Srl

(Case C-214/05 P) (1)

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme
Court — Ireland) — Sam Mc Cauley Chemists (Blackpool)
Ltd, Mark Sadja v Pharmaceutical Society of
Ireland,
Ireland, Attorney
for Health and Children,
Minister

General

(Case C-221/05) (1)

(Appeals — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion —
Word mark SISSI ROSSI — Opposition by the holder of the
earlier word mark MISS ROSSI — Arguments presented for
the first time at the hearing — Offers of evidence)

(Directive 85/433/EEC — Mutual recognition of diplomas —
Pharmacists — Recognition of diplomas held by pharmacists
working in new pharmacies open to the public — Scope of
the discretion enjoyed by Member States)

(2006/C 224/23)

Language of the case: Italian

(2006/C 224/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Sergio Rossi SpA (represented by: A. Ruo, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented
by: O. Montalto and P. Bullock, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Sissi Rossi Srl, established in
Castenaso di Villanova (Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, avvo-
cato)

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sam Mc Cauley Chemists (Blackpool) Ltd, Mark
Sadja

Defendants: Pharmaceutical Society of
Health and Children, Ireland, Attorney General

Ireland, Minister

for

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber) of 1 March 2005 in Case T-169/03 Sergio
Rossi SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) — Dismissal of an action for annul-
ment brought by the proprietor of a national and international
word mark ‘MISS ROSSI’ for goods within Class 25, against
Decision R 569/2002-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of
28 February 2003 setting aside the decision of the Opposition

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court of Ireland
— Interpretation of Article 2(1) and (2) of Council Directive
85/433/EEC of 16 September 1985 concerning the mutual
recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
formal qualifications in pharmacy, including measures to facili-
tate the effective exercise of the right of establishment relating
to certain activities in the field of pharmacy (OJ 1985 L 253,
p. 37) — Scope of the discretion enjoyed by Member States in
regard to the recognition of diplomas held by pharmacists
working in new pharmacies open to the public