Case C-133/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 May 2008 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Common policy on asylum — Directive 2005/85/EC — Procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status — Safe countries of origin — European safe third countries — Minimum common lists — Procedure for adopting or amending the minimum common lists — Article 67(1) and first indent of Article 67(5) EC — No power)
Date: 2008-05-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), admission of aliens, codecision procedure, refugee, right of asylum

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/3

Parties to the main proceedings

taken into account for the purpose of calculating both the exportable
surplus and the average loss per tonne of product.

Applicants: Zuckerfabrik Jülich AG, formerly Jülich AG (C-5/06),
Saint Louis Sucre SNC (C-23/06), Sucreries du Marquenterre SA
(C-24/06), SA des Sucreries de Fontaine Le Dun, Bolbec, Auffray
(SAFBA)
(C-25/06), SA Lesaffre Frères (C-26/06), Tereos, as
successor in title to Sucreries, Distilleries des Hauts de France
(C-27/06), SA Sucreries & Distilleries de Souppes — Ouvré fils
(C-28/06), SA Sucreries de Toury et Usines Annexes (C-29/06),
Tereos (C-30/06), Tereos, as successor in title to SAS Sucrerie du
Littoral Groupe SDHF (C-31/06), Cristal Union (C-32/06), Sucr-
erie Bourdon (C-33/06), SA Sucrerie de Bourgogne (C-34/06),
SAS Vermendoise Industries (C-35/06), SA Sucreries et Raffi-
neries d'Erstein (C-36/06)

Commission Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003 of 7 October 2003
fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2002/03
marketing year and (EC) No 1775/2004 of 14 October 2004
setting the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2003/04
marketing year are invalid.

Examination of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1837/2002 of
15 October 2002 fixing the production levies and the coefficient for
the additional levy in the sugar sector for the marketing year 2001/02
has not disclosed the existence of any factors such as to affect its
validity.

Defendants: Hauptzollamt Aachen (C-5/06), Directeur général des
douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et
droits indirects de Gennevilliers (C-23/06 to C-36/06)

(1) OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

Re:

314/2002

(EC) No

Regulation

Commission

Preliminary rulings — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpreta-
tion of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of
19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in
the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1) — Validity of Article 6(4)
of
of
20 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application
of the quota system in the sugar sector (OJ 2002 L 50, p. 40),
as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1140/2003 of
27 June 2003 amending, in the sugar sector, Regulations (EC)
No 779/96 laying down detailed rules of application as regards
communications and (EC) No 314/2002 laying down detailed
rules for the application of the quota system (OJ 2003 L 160,
(EC)
p.
No 1775/2004 of 14 October 2004 setting the production
levies in the sugar sector for the 2003/04 marketing year
(OJ 2004 L 316, p. 64) — Whether account is to be taken, in
determining the exportable surplus, of all exported quantities of
in determining the
sugar,
average loss per tonne of sugar, only of the quantities in respect
of which export refunds were paid

isoglucose and inulin syrup and,

of Commission Regulation

33) — Validity

Operative part of the judgment

of

15(1)(c)

to Article

Council Regulation

Pursuant
(EC)
No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of
the markets in the sugar sector,
for the purpose of calculating the
exportable surplus, all the quantities of exported products which fall
under that article must, regardless of whether or not refunds have actu-
ally been paid, be subtracted from consumption.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 May 2008 —
European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-133/06) (1)

(Action for annulment — Common policy on asylum — Direc-
tive 2005/85/EC — Procedures in Member States for granting
and withdrawing refugee status — Safe countries of origin —
European safe third countries — Minimum common lists —
Procedure for adopting or amending the minimum common
lists — Article 67(1) and first indent of Article 67(5) EC —
No power)

(2008/C 158/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament
(represented by: H. Duintjer
Tebbens, A. Caiola, A. Auersperger Matić and K. Bradley,
Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Commission of the European
Communities (represented by: C. O'Reilly, P. Van Nuffel and
J.-F. Pasquier, Agents)

Defendant: Council of
M. Simm, M. Balta and G. Maganza, Agents)

the European Union (represented by:

Article 15(1)(d) of that regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that
all the quantities of exported products which fall under that article
must, regardless of whether or not refunds have actually been paid, be

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented
by G. de Bergues and J.-C. Niollet, Agents)

C 158/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2008

Re:

tions which may serve, in trade, to designate the characteristics
of a service

Annulment of Articles 29(1) and (2) and 36(3) of Council
Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum stan-
dards on procedures in Member States for granting and with-
drawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Articles 29(1) and (2) and 36(3) of Council Directive
2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on
procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee
status;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

3. Orders the French Republic and the Commission of the European

Communities to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of

Instance of

(OHIM) did not

the Court of First

(Trade Marks and Designs)

the
European Communities of 3 May 2006 in Case T-439/04
Eurohypo v OHIM (EUROHYPO), inasmuch as the Court of First
the Fourth
the European Communities held that
Instance of
Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market
infringe
Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of
20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, as amended
by Council Regulation (EC) No 3288/94 of 22 December 1994,
by refusing, in its decision of 6 August 2004 (Case R 829/2002-
4), to register the term EUROHYPO as a Community trade mark
for services in Class 36 of the Nice Agreement of 15 June 1957
concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services
the Registration of Marks, as revised and
for the Purposes of
amended, corresponding to the following description:
‘financial
affairs; monetary affairs; real estate affairs; provision of financial
services; financing …’;

2. Dismisses the action against the decision of the Fourth Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 August 2004 (Case
R 829/2002-4);

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2008 —
Eurohypo AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

3. Orders Eurohypo AG to pay the costs of the proceedings at both

instances.

(Case C-304/06 P) (1)

(1) OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b) — Word mark EUROHYPO —
Absolute ground for refusal of registration — Trade mark
devoid of any distinctive character)

(2008/C 158/05)

Language of the case: German

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre
Landsret, Denmark) — Danske Svineproducenter v
Justitsministeriet

Parties

(Case C-491/06) (1)

Appellant: Eurohypo AG (represented by: C. Rohnke and M.
Kloth, Rechtsanwälte)

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

(Directive 91/628/EEC — Protection of animals during trans-
port — Implementation — Margin of discretion — Domestic
animals of the porcine species — Journeys exceeding eight
hours — Minimum height of each deck of the vehicle —
Loading density)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber) of 3 May 2006 in Case T-439/04 Eurohypo AG
v OHIM in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the
action for annulment of the decision refusing to register the
word mark EUROHYPO for services in Class 36 — Distinctive
character of a mark which consists exclusively of signs or indica-

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

(2008/C 158/06)

Language of the case: Danish