Case C-391/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg lodged on 20 August 2007 — Glencore Grain Rotterdam BV v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Date: 2007-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs formalities, customs regulations, interpretation of the law, transport document

C 269/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.11.2007

By its first ground of appeal the appellant claims that the Court
of First Instance infringed its duty to give reasons and thus also
Article 82 EC with its contradictory finding of the conduct
leading to an abuse. In one instance the Court found that there
had been an abuse on the basis that the appellant requires
undertakings, which do not use its system or use it only in
respect of certain packaging carrying its logo, to pay the full
licence fee. In another instance the Court states that it only
‘could be the case’ under the provisions in dispute of the Trade
Mark Agreement that the appellant charges the price of the
collection and recovery service for sales packaging which is not
part of its system.

it is argued,

The second, fifth and sixth grounds of appeal relate to the
assessment of the scope of the licence offered by the appellant,
is inadequate, manifestly misleading and
which,
wrong in law as being at variance with the documents and
evidence submitted. Had the Court carried out its assessment of
the facts correctly it would have had to recognise that the appel-
lant does not grant licences in isolation in such a way that the
contested decision would have to be understood as a finding
that the refusal to grant such a licence is abusive and that the
order to cease charging any licence fee for partial quantities of
sales packaging in Article 3 of the contested decision is tanta-
mount to an order to charge a compulsory licence fee. However,
the Court wrongly failed to respect the requirements resulting
from the case-law to give reasons and failed to have regard to
the fact that a compulsory licence is not possible from the point
of view of trade mark and packaging law. The appellant claims
in that regard that the duty to give reasons, the fundamental
principle of proportionality and Article 82 EC and Article 3 of
Council Regulation No 17 were infringed.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg lodged on 20 August 2007 — Glencore Grain
Rotterdam BV v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-391/07)

(2007/C 269/52)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Glencore Grain Rotterdam BV

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Questions referred:

Must Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 be interpreted
as meaning that production of
the proof described in the
second paragraph thereof results in waiver of the need not only
for proof of completion of customs formalities for release for
consumption but also for production of the transport docu-
ments (Article 18(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87, now
Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 800/99)?

from the ‘exclusivity claimed’, which,

By its third and fourth pleas in law the appellant claims that the
Court
infringed its duty to give reasons and thus also
Article 82 EC by its finding that the mark ‘Der Grüne Punkt’
could not benefit
is
argued, is inadequate, misleading and wrong as regards German
packaging and trade mark law. With that
finding it even
infringed the fundamental principle of Community trade mark
law under which a registered mark grants its proprietor an
exclusive right, in particular, in relation to the use of the mark
for goods and services which are identical or similar to those
for which the mark was registered.

it

By its seventh and eighth pleas in law the appellant alleges two
procedural errors. First, the Court introduced new findings or
made findings of
its own motion even though the subject-
matter of those findings was not part of the contested decisions
or introduced by the parties in the proceedings before the
Court. Second, the Court committed a procedural error to the
detriment of the appellant in that it infringed the basic right of
the Union that a case is to be dealt with within a reasonable
period of time.

(1) OJ 2001 L 166, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus
(Finland) lodged on 27 August 2007 — Mirja Juuri v Fazer
Amica Oy

(Case C-396/07)

(2007/C 269/53)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mirja Juuri

Defendant: Fazer Amica Oy