Case C-117/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Gerda Möllendorf and Christiane Möllendorf-Niehuus (Common foreign and security policy — Specific restrictive measures directed against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Articles 2(3) and 4(1) — Prohibition on making economic resources available to persons listed in Annex I to that Regulation — Scope of prohibition — Sale of immovable property — Contract concluded before inclusion of a buyer in the list in Annex I — Application for registration of the transfer of ownership in the Land Register subsequent to that inclusion)
Date: 2007-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Afghanistan, commercial contract, economic sanctions, international sanctions, interpretation of the law, real property, sale, terrorism

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/9

3) Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) must be inter-
preted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in
the main proceedings, which exempts companies established in
France from the tax on the commercial value of immovable property
owned in France by legal persons, when, in respect of companies
established in another Member State,
it makes that exemption
subject either to the existence of a convention on administrative
assistance between the French Republic and that State for the
purposes of combating tax avoidance and tax evasion or to the
existence of a requirement in a treaty containing a clause prohi-
biting discrimination on grounds of nationality to the effect that
those companies cannot be more heavily taxed than companies
established in France, and which does not allow the company estab-
lished in another Member State to supply evidence to establish the
identity of the natural persons who are its shareholders.

(1) OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

lished and against the person, established in the territory of
another Member State, who undertook that obligation without
being the agent or representative of the person in question —
Contractual nature of actions

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of
22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enfor-
cement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is to be inter-
preted as meaning that the fact that claims brought against a
number of defendants have different legal bases does not preclude
application of that provision.

2. Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 applies where claims
brought against different defendants are
connected when the
proceedings are instituted, that is to say, where it is expedient to
hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable
judgments resulting from separate proceedings, without there being
any further need to establish separately that the claims were not
brought with the sole object of ousting the jurisdiction of the courts
of the Member State where one of the defendants is domiciled.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 October
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
domstolen — Sweden) — Freeport plc v Olle Arnoldsson

(1) OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

(Case C-98/06) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 6(1) — Special juris-
diction — More than one defendant — Legal bases of the
actions — Abuse — Likelihood of success of an action
brought in the courts for the place where one of the defen-
dants is domiciled)

(2007/C 297/12)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Freeport plc

Defendant: Olle Arnoldsson

Re:

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 October
2007 (reference for
a preliminary ruling from the
Kammergericht Berlin — Germany) — Proceedings
Christiane
brought

Gerda Möllendorf

and

by

Möllendorf-Niehuus

(Case C-117/06) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy — Specific restrictive
measures directed against persons and entities associated with
Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban —
Freezing of funds and economic resources — Regulation (EC)
No 881/2002 — Articles 2(3) and 4(1) — Prohibition on
making economic resources available to persons listed in
Annex I to that Regulation — Scope of prohibition — Sale of
immovable property — Contract concluded before inclusion of
a buyer in the list in Annex I — Application for registration
of the transfer of ownership in the Land Register subsequent
to that inclusion)

(2007/C 297/13)

Language of the case: German

Interpretation of Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commer-
cial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1 — Special jurisdiction — More
than one defendant — Actions brought
simultaneously
concerning an obligation of payment against a legal person
before the court in a country where that legal person is estab-

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

C 297/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.12.2007

Party in the main proceedings

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 October
2007 — Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Gerda Möllendorf, Christiane Möllendorf-Niehuus

(Case C-144/06 P) (1)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Kammergericht Berlin —
Interpretation of Articles 2(3) and 4(1) of Council Regulation
(EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific
restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities
associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the
Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001
prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghani-
stan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of
funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of
Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9) — Prohibition on making
economic resources available to persons listed in Annex I —
Refusal of the registration in the Land Register necessary for the
transfer of ownership of a property following a contract of sale
concluded prior to listing of the buyer in Annex I.

Operative part of the judgment

certain

specific

restrictive measures

In a situation where both the contract for the sale of immovable prop-
erty and the agreement on transfer of ownership of that property have
been concluded before the date on which the buyer is included in the
list in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May
2002 imposing
directed
against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden,
the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and
services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending
the freeze of
the
Taliban of Afghanistan, as amended by Council Regulation (EC)
No 561/2003 of 27 March 2003, and where the sale price has also
been paid before that date, Article 2(3) of Regulation No 881/02, as
amended by Regulation No 561/2003, must be interpreted as prohi-
biting the final registration,
in performance of that contract, of the
transfer of ownership in the Land Register subsequent to that date.

funds and other financial resources in respect of

(1) OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b) — Refusal to register — Figura-
tive mark — Representation of a red and white rectangular
tablet with an oval blue centre — Distinctive character)

(2007/C 297/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Henkel KGaA (represented by: C. Osterrieth,
Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G.
Schneider, Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of
the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2006 in Case
T-398/04 Henkel KGaA v OHIM,
in which the Court of First
Instance rejected the application for annulment of the decision
to refuse the registration of a three-dimensional mark for deter-
gent products in the form of a red and white rectangular tablet
with an oval blue centre — Three-dimensional mark consisting
of the shape of the product — Distinctive character of the mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders Henkel KGaA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.