Case C-266/05 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 February 2007 — Jose Maria Sison v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Exceptions — Public interest — Public security — International relations — Documents which have served as the basis for a Council decision establishing restrictive measures directed against certain persons with a view to combating terrorism — Sensitive documents — Refusal of access — Refusal to disclose the identity of the States from which some of those documents emanate)
Date: 2007-04-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, General Court (EU), access to information, appeal, rights of the defence, terrorism

C 82/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.4.2007

Operative part of the judgment

Re:

Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
does not preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main
proceedings in so far as that legislation makes repayment of corpora-
tion tax deducted at source on the income of a taxpayer with restricted
tax liability subject to the condition that the operating expenses in
respect of which a deduction is claimed for that purpose by that
taxpayer have a direct economic connection to the income received from
activities pursued in the Member State concerned, on condition that all
the costs that are inextricably linked to that activity are considered to
have such a direct connection,
irrespective of the place and time at
which those costs were incurred. By contrast, that article precludes such
national legislation in so far as it makes repayment of that tax to that
taxpayer subject to the condition that those same operating expenses
exceed half of that income.

(1) OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 February
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
(Belgium) — BVBA Management,
beroep te Brussel

Training en Consultancy v Benelux-Merkenbureau

First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks
must be interpreted as meaning that:

— when refusing registration of a trade mark, the competent authority
is required to state in its decision its conclusion for each of the
individual goods and services specified in the application for regis-
tration, regardless of the manner in which that application was
formulated. However, where the same ground of refusal is given for
a category or group of goods or services, the competent authority
may use only general reasoning for all of the goods or services
concerned;

— it does not preclude national legislation which prevents the court
reviewing the decision of the competent authority from ruling on
the distinctive character of the mark separately for each of the indi-
vidual goods and services specified in the trade mark application,
where neither that decision nor that application related to cate-
gories of goods or services or goods or services considered sepa-
rately;

— it does not preclude national legislation which prevents the court
reviewing a decision of
the competent authority from taking
account of facts and circumstances which arose after that decision
had been taken.

(Case C-239/05) (1)

(1) OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.

(Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Application for
registration of a trade mark for a range of goods and services
— Examination of the sign by the competent authority —
Taking account of all the relevant facts and circumstances —
Jurisdiction of the national court seised of an action)

(2007/C 82/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BVBA Management, Training en Consultancy

Defendant: Benelux-Merkenbureau

Objet

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Brussel
— Interpretation of Article 3 of First Council Directive 89/104
EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of Member
States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Applica-
tion for registration of the trade mark ‘The Kitchen Company’
— Examination of
the sign by the competent authority —
Taking account of all the relevant facts and circumstances —
Judgment in Koninklijke KPN Nederland

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 February 2007
— Jose Maria Sison v Council of the European Union

(Case C-266/05 P) (1)

(Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions — Regu-
lation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Exceptions — Public interest —
Public security — International relations — Documents which
have served as the basis for a Council decision establishing
restrictive measures directed against certain persons with a
view to combating terrorism — Sensitive documents —
Refusal of access — Refusal to disclose the identity of the
States from which some of those documents emanate)

(2007/C 82/07)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Jose Maria Sison (represented by: J. Fermon, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
(represented by: M. Bauer and E. Finnegan, Agents)

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/5

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber) of 26 April 2005 in Joined Cases T-110/03,
T-150/03 and T-405/03 Sison v Council, by which the Court of
First Instance dismissed an application for annulment of the
Council's decision refusing the applicant's request for access to
certain documents on which the Council relied when adopting
Decision 2002/848/EC implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation
(EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed
against certain persons and entities with a view to combating
terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ 2002 L 295,
p. 12)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Sison to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 243, 1.10.2005.

17 February 1975 (OJ 1975 L 48, p. 29), Article 2(4) of
Council Directive 92/56/EEC of 24 June 1992 (OJ 1992 L 245,
p. 3) and Article 4(4) of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July
1998 (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16), on the approximation of the laws
of
the Member States relating to collective redundancies —
Employer's obligation to inform and consult with the workers'
representatives — Scope of the derogating conditions governing
dismissals where activities are terminated following a judicial
decision

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation
of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, in
particular Article 1(1)(a),
is to be interpreted as meaning that a
production unit such as that at issue in the main proceedings comes
within the concept of ‘establishment’ for the purposes of the application
of that directive.

(1) OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 February
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arios
Pagos — Greece) — Athinaiki Chartopoiia AE v L. Panagio-
tidis and Others

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 February
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio
Patron — Greece) — I. Lechouritou, V. Karkoulias, G.
Pavlopoulos, P. Bratsikas, D. Sotiropoulos, G. Dimopoulos
v Dimosio tis Omospondiakis Dimokratias tis Germanias

(Case C-270/05) (1)

(Case C-292/05) (1)

(Collective redundancies — Council Directive 98/59/EC —
Article 1(1)(a) — Termination of the establishment's activ-
ities of the employer's own volition — Concept of ‘establish-
ment’)

(2007/C 82/08)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Arios Pagos

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Athinaiki Chartopoiia AE

Defendant: L. Panagiotidis and Others

(Brussels Convention — First sentence of the first paragraph
of Article 1 — Scope — Civil and commercial matters —
Meaning — Action for
in a
Contracting State, by the successors of the victims of war
massacres, against another Contracting State on account of
acts perpetrated by its armed forces)

compensation brought

(2007/C 82/09)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Efetio Patron

Intervener: Geniki Sinomospondia Ergaton Elladas (GSEE)

Parties to the main proceedings

Re:

Plaintiffs: I. Lechouritou, V. Karkoulias, G. Pavlopoulos, P. Brat-
sikas, D. Sotiropoulos, G. Dimopoulos

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arios Pagos — Interpreta-
tion of Article 1(2)(d) of Council Directive 75/129/EEC of

Defendant: Dimosio tis Omospondiakis Dimokratias tis Germa-
nias