Case C-483/07 P: 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 GmbH & Co KG v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-11-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, European Union, Internet, Internet address, action for annulment (EU), appeal, intellectual property, regulation of telecommunications

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