Case C-324/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat, Belgium, lodged on 12 July 2007 — Coditel Brabant v 1. Commune d'Uccle, 2. Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision (BRUTELE), 3. Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
Date: 2007-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cable distribution, cooperative, interpretation of the law, municipality, power of decision

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/27

formerly
Appeal brought on 11 July 2007 by 3F,
Specialarbejderforbundet
the
order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber,
Extended Composition) delivered on 23.4.2007 in Case
i Danmark (SID) v
T-30/03: Specialarbejderforbundet

i Danmark (SID) against

Commission of the European Communities

Appeal brought on 11 July 2007 by Antartica Srl against
the judgment of
Instance (Fourth
the Court of First
Chamber) delivered on 10 May 2007 in Case T-47/06:
Antartica Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade marks and Designs)

(Case C-319/07 P)

(2007/C 211/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

i Danmark
(represented by: A. Bentley, Barrister and A. Worsøe,

formerly Specialarbejderforbundet

Appellant: 3F,
(SID)
advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities, Kingdom of Denmark, Kingdom of Norway

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 23 April
2007 in Case T-30/03, Specialarbejderforbundet i Dan mark v
Commission of the European Communities; and

(Case C-320/07 P)

(2007/C 211/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Antartica Srl (represented by: E. Racca, avvocati and
A. Fusillo, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), The Nasdaq Stock
Market, Inc.

Form of order sought

The appellant claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision by the Second Board of Appeal

— order the defendant to pay costs

— declare the appellant's application in Case T-30/03 admis-

Pleas in law and main arguments

sible; and

— order that

the Applicant's costs of bringing the present

appeal be borne by the Commission in any event.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that
annulled on the following grounds:

the contested order should be

1. The Court of First Instance erred in law by relying on Case
C-67/96, Albany to hold that the appellant could not rely on
its own competitive position in the negotiation of collective
agreements in order to establish that
it was individually
concerned.

2. The Court of First Instance erred in law by finding that the
appellant could not rely on social aspects to establish that it
was individually concerned.

3. The Court of First Instance misapplied the Plaumann and
ARE case-law by finding that
the appellant cannot be
regarded as individually concerned merely because the aid in
question is passed to the recipients by means of a reduction
in the wage claims of seafarers benefiting from the income
tax exemption.

4. The Court of First Instance misapplied the Van der Kooy and
CIRFS case-law by finding that the appellant's own interest as
a negotiator were not affected by fiscal measures.

The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance's interpre-
tation of Article 8 (5) of Regulation 40/94 (1) is inconsistent
with the current definition of trademark notoriety subsequent
to case C-372/97 General Motors.

(1) OJ L 11, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat,
Belgium,
lodged on 12 July 2007 — Coditel Brabant v
1. Commune d'Uccle, 2. Société Intercommunale pour la
Diffusion de la Télévision (BRUTELE), 3. Région de
Bruxelles-Capitale

(Case C-324/07)

(2007/C 211/51)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'Etat

C 211/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.9.2007

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Coditel Brabant

Defendants: 1. Commune d'Uccle, 2. Société Intercommunale
pour la Diffusion de la Télévision (BRUTELE), 3. Région de
Bruxelles-Capitale

Questions referred

in the knowledge that

1) May a municipality, without calling for competition, join a
cooperative society grouping together exclusively other
municipalities and associations of municipalities (a so-called
pure inter-municipal cooperative) in order to transfer to that
its cable television
cooperative society the operation of
network,
the cooperative society
carries out the essential part of its activities for and with its
own members and that decisions regarding those activities
are taken by the board of directors and the sector boards
within the limits of the delegated powers granted to them by
the board of directors,
corporate bodies being
those
composed of representatives of the public authorities and
the decisions of
those corporate bodies being taken in
accordance with the vote expressed by the majority of those
representatives?

2) Can the control thus exercised over the decisions of the
cooperative society, via the corporate bodies, by all
the
in the case of
members of the cooperative society — or,
operational
those
members — be regarded as enabling them to exercise over
the cooperative society control similar to that exercised over
their own departments?

sub-sectors, by some of

sectors or

2003/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 27 March 2003 amending Council Directive 83/477/EEC
on the protection of workers from the risks related to expo-
sure to asbestos at work (1) or,
in any event, by not
communicating them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
its obligations under
Article 2(1) of that directive;

— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2003/18/EC expired on
14 April 2006.

(1) OJ 2003 L 97, p. 48.

Action brought on 13 July 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-328/07)

(2007/C 211/53)

Language of the case: French

3) For that control to be regarded as similar, must it be exer-
cised individually by each member, or is it sufficient that it
be exercised by the majority of the members?

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: W. Wils, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Action brought on 11 July 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

(Case C-325/07)

(2007/C 211/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

— Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
intellectual
of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of
property rights (1), or in any event by not communicating
them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Rozet, acting as Agent)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive

The period for the transposition of Directive 2004/48/EC into
domestic law expired on 29 April 2006.

(1) OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16.