Case C-375/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Erhard Geuting v Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen (Beef and veal — Premium for maintaining suckler cows)
Date: 2007-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to agriculture, common organisation of markets, eligibility criteria, farmers' income, heifer, interpretation of the law, suckler cow

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 October
the European Communities v
2007 — Commission of

Hellenic Republic

(Case C-237/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Provision of assis-
tance services to farmers for the year 2001 — Regulation
(EEC) No 3508/92 — Implementation in Greek of the inte-
grated administration and control system (IACS) — Absence
of call for tenders — Application inadmissible)

(2007/C 297/06)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Patakia and X. Lewis, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market
(represented by:
(Trade Marks and Designs)
O. Montalto, I. de Medrano Caballero and O. Mondéjar, Agents),
France Cartes SAS represented by: C. de Haas, avocat)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of
the Court of First
Instance (Third Chamber) of 11 May 2005 in Joined Cases
T-160/02 to T-162/02 Naipes Heraclio Fournier v OHIM (inter-
vener: France Cartes SAS), by which the Court of First Instance
dismissed the actions brought against three decisions of the
Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (OHIM) of 28 February 2002, allowing the
applications for declarations of
invalidity brought by France
Cartes SAS in respect of three figurative marks of which the
applicant is proprietor

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos
and S. Charitaki, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringe-
ment of Articles 3(2), 7, 11(1) and 15(2) of Council Directive
92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992
L 209, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2) Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the

costs.

(1) OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October
2007 — Naipes Heraclio Fournier, SA v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs), France Cartes SAS

(Case C-311/05 P) (1)

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Naipes Heraclio Fournier, SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 243 of 1.10.2005.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwal-
tungsgericht — Germany) — Erhard Geuting v Direktor
der Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-375/05) (1)

(Beef and veal — Premium for maintaining suckler cows)

(2007/C 297/08)

Language of the case: German

(Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Community trade
mark — Figurative marks comprising the representation of a
‘sword’, a ‘knight of clubs’ and a ‘king of swords’ in a pack of
cards — Declaration of invalidity of the mark)

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

(2007/C 297/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties

Applicant: Erhard Geuting

Appellant: Naipes Heraclio Fournier, SA (represented by:
E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, abogados)

Defendant: Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-
Westfalen

C 297/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.12.2007

Re:

the market in beef and veal

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht
— Interpretation of Article 4a(ii) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68
of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation
of
(OJ, English Special Edition
1968 (I), p. 187), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2066/92 of 30 June 1992 amending Regulation (EEC)
No 805/68 on the common organisation of the market in beef
and veal and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 468/87 laying
down general rules applying to the special premium for beef
producers and Regulation (EEC) No 1357/80 introducing a
system of premiums for maintaining suckler cows (OJ 1992
L 215, p. 49) and Article 33(2) and (4) of Commission Regu-
lation (EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down
detailed rules for the application of
the premium schemes
provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the
common organisation of the market in beef and repealing Regu-
lations (EEC) No 1244/82 and (EEC) No 714/89 (OJ 1992
L 391, p. 20), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996 amending Regulation (EEC)
No 3886/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of
premium schemes in the beef and veal sector (OJ 1996 L 313,
p. 9) — Premium for maintaining suckler cows — Meaning of
‘suckler cow’ and ‘use of rights’ — Repayment of advances
received and reduction of individual ceiling following the refusal
to take into account, for the grant of the premium,
in-calf
heifers, which did not replace suckler cows in respect of which a
premium had been applied for.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Point (ii) of the third indent of Article 4a of Regulation (EEC)
No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common
organisation of the market in beef and veal, as amended by Council
Regulation (EC) No 2222/96 of 18 November 1996, must be
interpreted as meaning that an in-calf heifer may be regarded as a
suckler cow within the meaning of Section 1 of that regulation
only if it replaces, after the premium application for the marketing
year has been lodged, a suckler cow included in that application;

2. An in-calf heifer which, for a marketing year, replaced a suckler
cow in respect of which a premium application was made and
which was accepted as being eligible for that premium may be
regarded as a suckler cow within the meaning of point (ii) of the
third indent of Article 4a of Regulation No 805/68, as amended
by Regulation No 2222/96, where it fulfils, in the following year,
the requirements for replacing a suckler cow again;

3. Point

the
as

amended

third indent of Article 4a of Regulation
(ii) of
No 805/68,
(EC)
No 2222/96, is to be interpreted as meaning that an in-calf heifer
in respect of which a premium application has been made is not
eligible for the premium if it calves before the deadline for lodging
that application;

by Council Regulation

4. Article 33(2)

of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules

and

(4)

for the application of the premium schemes provided for in Regu-
lation No 805/68 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 1244/82
and (EEC) No 714/89, as amended by Commission Regulation
(EC) No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996, is to be interpreted as
meaning that a producer must be considered as not having made
use of his premium rights during a marketing year if he has
applied for a premium but his application has been rejected because
the animals concerned were not eligible, and this is also the case if
there is no indication of an improper application having been
made. Such an interpretation is not contrary to the principle of
proportionality;

5. It is for the national court to decide whether, in the light of all the
duly justified circumstances of the situation of the applicant in the
main proceedings, that situation constitutes an exceptional case in
which the derogation provided for
indent of
Article 33(2) of Regulation No 3886/92, as amended by Regu-
lation No 2311/96, falls to be applied, whilst taking account of
the need to apply that provision restrictively;

in the

final

6. Article 33(4) of Regulation No 3886/92, as amended by Regu-
lation No 2311/96, read in conjunction with Article 4f(4) of
Regulation No 805/68, as amended by Regulation No 2222/96,
is to be interpreted as meaning that Member States may, on expiry
of the two-year exclusion period, grant to a producer, on a preferen-
tial basis, the premium rights which were withdrawn from him
because he had made use of more than 70 % but less than 90 %
of his premium rights in the 1998 marketing year.

(1) OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 October
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado
de lo Social de Madrid — Spain) — Félix Palacios de la
Villa v Cortefiel Servicios SA

(Case C-411/05) (1)

(Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and
occupation — Scope — Collective agreement providing for
automatic termination of employment relationship where a
worker has reached 65 years of age and is entitled to a retire-
ment pension — Age discrimination — Justification)

(2007/C 297/09)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social de Madrid