Case C-482/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage (Netherlands) lodged on 2 November 2007 — AHP Manufacturing BV v Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom, also operating under the name Octrooicentrum Nederland
Date: 2007-11-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: health certificate, interpretation of the law, marketing standard, medicinal product, pharmaceutical legislation, pharmaceutical product, plant health product

C 8/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.1.2008

Action brought on 22 October 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-469/07)

(2008/C 8/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: H. Kraemer, Agent)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
Court should:

— declare that, by failing to communicate the Community
design courts to the Commission,
the Grand Duchy of
its obligations under
failed to fulfil
Luxembourg has
Article 80(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of
12 December 2001 on Community designs (1);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not fulfilled the obligation
laid down in Article 80(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, under
which each Member State is to communicate to the Commission
not later than 6 March 2005 a list of Community design courts,
indicating their names and their territorial jurisdiction.

(1) OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1.

lation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 (1); hereinafter
‘the customs code’) the entry in the accounts referred to in
Article 217 of
the customs code, which consists in the
amount of duty being entered by the customs authorities in
the accounting records or on any other equivalent medium,
and is that entry in the accounts to be distinguished from
the inclusion of the amount of duty in the accounts for own
resources as referred to in Article 6 of Council Regulation
(EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing
Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of
the
Communities' own resources (2) (now Article 6 of Council
Regulation 1150/2000 (EC, Euratom) of 22 May 2000
implementing Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom on the
system of the Communities' own resources (3))?

2. Is Article 221(1) of the customs code to be understood to
mean that notification of the amount of duty by the customs
authorities to the debtor in accordance with appropriate
procedures can be regarded as the communication of the
amount of duty to the debtor as referred to in Article 221(1)
of
the amount of duty has
previously been entered in the accounts by the customs
authorities?

the customs code only if

3. Is Article 221(1) of the customs code to be understood to
mean that, if the debtor is notified of the amount of duty by
in accordance with appropriate
the customs authorities
procedures but without the amount of duty being entered in
the accounts prior to the customs authorities' notification,
payment of the amount of duty cannot be demanded, as a
consequence of which, in order to obtain payment of the
amount of duty, the customs authorities must again notify
the debtor of the amount of duty in accordance with appro-
priate procedures after the amount of duty has been entered
in the accounts and provided that the entry in the accounts
occurs within the applicable limitation period?

(1) Regulation establishing the Community Customs Code OJ 1992

L 302, p. 1.

(2) OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1.
(3) OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
lodged on 29 October
beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium)

2007 — N.V. Gerlach & Co v Belgische Staat

(Case C-477/07)

(2008/C 8/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank
's-Gravenhage (Netherlands) lodged on 2 November 2007
— AHP Manufacturing BV v Bureau voor de Industriële
Eigendom, also operating under the name Octrooicentrum
Nederland

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: N.V. Gerlach & Co

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Questions referred

(Case C-482/07)

(2008/C 8/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

1. Is the entry in the accounts referred to in Article 221(1) of
the Community Customs Code (established by Council Regu-

Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/7

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AHP Manufacturing BV

Appeal brought on 5 November 2007 by Galileo
Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG against the order of the
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on
28 August 2007 in Case T-46/06 Galileo Lebensmittel
the European
GmbH & Co KG v Commission of

Defendant: Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom (Industrial Prop-
erty Office), also operating under the name Octrooicentrum
Nederland (Netherlands Patent Centre)

Questions referred

1. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June
1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection
for medicinal products (1),
certificate
subsequently
amended, and more specifically Article 3(1)(c)
thereof,
preclude the grant of a certificate to the holder of a basic
patent for a product for which, at the time of the submission
of the application for a certificate, one or more certificates
have already been granted to one or more holders of one or
more other basic patents?

as

2. Does Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of

the European
Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning
the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for
plant protection products (2), as subsequently amended, and
more specifically recital 17 and the second sentence of
Article 3(2) thereof, give rise to a different answer to Ques-
tion 1?

relevant
3. When answering the previous questions,
like the previous
whether the last application submitted,
application or applications,
is submitted within the period
prescribed by Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92
that prescribed by Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC)
or
No 1768/92?

is

it

4. When answering the previous questions,

relevant
whether the period of protection afforded by the grant of a
certificate pursuant
to Article 13 of Regulation (EEC)
No 1768/92 expires at the same time as, or at a later time
than, under one or more certificates already granted for the
product concerned?

is

it

5. When answering the previous questions, is it relevant that
Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 does not specify the period
within which the competent authority, as referred to in
Article 9(1) of that Regulation, must process the application
for a certificate and ultimately grant a certificate, as a result
of which a difference in the speed with which the authorities
concerned in the Member States process applications may
lead to differences between them as to the possibility of a
certificate being granted?

(1) OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30.

Communities

(Case C-483/07 P)

(2008/C 8/13)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Galileo Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG (represented by:
K. Bott, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought by the appellant

1. Set aside the order of the Second Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities of 28 August
2007 and

2. Annul

the respondent's decision to reserve the Domain

galileo.eu;

3. Order the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal proceed-
the proceedings before the Court of First

ings and of
Instance;

4. Only in the alternative to the orders sought under points 2
and 3 above, refer the case back to the Court of First
Instance and order the respondent to pay the costs of the
appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

sentence

law (second

of Community

The appellant contends in this appeal that there has been an
of
infringement
Article 58(1) of the Court Statute), namely the fourth paragraph
of Article 230 EC. According to the appellant, the Court of First
Instance committed such a legal infringement by dismissing its
action as inadmissible on the basis that the appellant was not
‘individually concerned’ by the contested decision of the respon-
dent to reserve the domain galileo.eu for itself. The appellant
regards itself as individually concerned within the meaning of
the case-law of the Court of Justice by the decision of the
Commission to reserve the Domain galileo.eu for itself, on the
the German word mark
ground of
Galileo, on the ground of its legal standing in the registration
procedure conferred on it by Commission Regulation 874/2004
and on the basis that the Domain galileo.eu is a marketable
economic asset and can only be allocated once.

its rights in respect of