Case C-543/07: Action brought on 3 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2007-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, equal treatment, gender equality, job access, promotion, working conditions

C 37/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.2.2008

In the course of the procedure for infringement, the European
Commission has had the opportunity of examining the Italian
Republic's arguments in defence justifying the legislation in
they do not do so. Recently
question, but considers that
however the Italian Government announced its own intention
to amend the said legislation by making it compliant with the
Community directive. This action may accelerate such process
of reform.

(1) OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6.

‘Application’) does not offend against either Article 7(1)(b) or
7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as it has acquired a
distinctive character
is
submitted that the Court of First Instance erred in its analysis of
the relevant law; in particular, it erred when it failed to hold
that use after the filing date was relevant when considering the
issue of acquired distinctiveness.

since the Application was

filed.

It

Accordingly, the Court of First Instance was wrong to dismiss
the appeal before it. Hence,
it is submitted that this appeal
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance ought to be
allowed and its Judgment set aside. The Appellant also seeks its
costs in these appeal proceedings and in the proceedings before
the Court of First Instance.

Appeal brought on 30 November 2007 by Imagination
Technologies Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2007
in Case T-461/04: Imagination Technologies Ltd v Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM)

Action brought on 3 December 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-542/07 P)

(2008/C 37/25)

Language of the case: English

(Case C-543/07)

(2008/C 37/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant:
Edenborough, Barrister)

Imagination Technologies Ltd (represented by: M.

Parties

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. van Beek, Agent)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Form of order sought

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance.

— make an order for costs of and associated with this appeal
before the Court of Justice and its appeal before the Court
of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the European Parliament and of

— Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2002/73/EC (1) of
the
Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive
76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal
treatment for men and women as regards access to employ-
ment, vocational
training and promotion, and working
conditions, or in any event by not communicating such
measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

The Appellant submits that the Community trade mark applica-
tion No 2396075 for the word mark PURE DIGITAL (the

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/19

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the Directive into national
law expired on 5 October 2005.

Appeal brought on 8 December 2007 by Akzo Nobel
Chemicals Ltd, Akcros Chemicals Ltd against the judgment
of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on
17 September 2007 in Case T-253/03: Akzo Nobel
Chemicals Ld and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v the Commission
of the European Communities

(1) OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15.

(Case C-550/07 P)

(2008/C 37/28)

Language of the case: English

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki
Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Republic of Poland)
lodged on 4 December 2007 — Uwe Rüffler v Dyrektor
Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu — Ośrodek Zamiejscowy
w Wałbrzychu

Parties

(Case C-544/07)

(2008/C 37/27)

Language of the case: Polish

Appellants: Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd, Akcros Chemicals Ltd
(represented by: C. Swaak, advocaat, M. Mollica and M. van der
Woude, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities, Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the
European Union, Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van
Advocaten, Association européenne des juristes d'entreprise
(AEJE), American Corporate Counsel Association (ACCA) —
European Chapter, International Bar Association

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Regional
Administrative Court, Wrocław) (Poland)

Form of order sought

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Uwe Rüffler

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu — Ośrodek
Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu (Director of the Wrocław Tax Divi-
sion, Wałbrzych office)

Question referred

Must the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 12 EC and
Article 39(1) and (2) EC be construed as precluding the national
provision contained in Article 27b of the Law of 26 July 1991
on income tax payable by natural persons, which restricts the
right to a reduction of income tax by the amount of compul-
sory health insurance contributions paid to contributions paid
exclusively on the basis of provisions of national law, in the case
where a resident pays in another Member State compulsory
health insurance contributions deducted from income taxed in
Poland?

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of
17 September 2007 in Case T-253/03, insofar as it rejected
the claim of LPP for communications with Akzo Nobel's in-
house lawyer;

— annul

the Rejection Decision of 8 May 2003 of
the
Commission, in as far as it refused to return the e-mail cor-
respondence with Akzo Nobel's in-house lawyer (part of Set
B documents);

— order the Commission to pay costs of this appeal and of the
proceedings before the CFI in as far as they concern the plea
raised in the present appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that by rejecting this claim, the CFI
violated Community Law. In particular, the Appellants contend
that by strictly following a partial and literal interpretation of a
few paragraphs of AM&S Europe v Commission (1), the CFI:

1. gave incorrect interpretation of the principle of LPP as it is
thereby violating the principle of

explained in AM&S,
equality (section B)