Case C-491/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret, Denmark) — Danske Svineproducenter v Justitsministeriet (Directive 91/628/EEC — Protection of animals during transport — Implementation — Margin of discretion — Domestic animals of the porcine species — Journeys exceeding eight hours — Minimum height of each deck of the vehicle — Loading density)
Date: 2008-05-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, protection of animals, technical specification, transport of animals

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

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/5

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Danske Svineproducenter

Defendant: Justitsministeriet

Intervener: Den Europæiske Dyre- og Kødhandelsunion (UECBV)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret —
Interpretation of points 2(b), 47(D) and the third indent of
point 48(3) of the Annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC on
the protection of animals during transport and amending Direc-
tives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17), as
amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995
(OJ 1995 L 148, p. 52) — Minimum height and loading density
in each deck in vehicles transporting pigs where the transport
exceeds eight hours

Operative part of the judgment

1. National rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings,
comprising figures for the animal compartment height in order that
transporters may refer to more precise standards than those set out
in Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the
protection of animals during transport and amending Directives
90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Directive
95/29/EC of 29 June 1995, may fall within the margin of discre-
tion conferred on the Member States by Article 249 EC, on condi-
tion that those rules, which comply with the objective pursued by
that directive, as amended, of protecting animals during transport
do not, contrary to the principle of proportionality, prevent attain-
ment of the objectives, also pursued by that directive, as amended,
of eliminating technical barriers to trade in live animals and
allowing market organisations to operate smoothly. It is for the
national court to establish whether those rules comply with those
principles.

2. Section D of point 47 in Chapter VI of the annex to Directive
91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29, must be interpreted as
meaning that a Member State is entitled to introduce national
rules under which, in the case of transport operations of over eight
hours' duration, the available space per animal must be at least
0,50 m2 per 100 kg of pig.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

the Court

(Third Chamber) of 8 May
Judgment of
2008 (reference for
a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Ingenieurbüro Michael
Weiss und Partner GbR v Industrie- und Handelskammer
Berlin

(Case C-14/07) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC)
No 1348/2000 — Service of judicial and extrajudicial docu-
translated —
ments — Annexes

to the document not

Consequences)

(2008/C 158/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und Partner GbR

Defendant: Industrie- und Handelskammer Berlin

Joined party: Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners Ltd

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof —
Interpretation of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member
States of
in civil or
judicial and extrajudicial documents
commercial matters (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 37) — Refusal to
accept an application served in another Member State and
drawn up in the language of that Member State addressed on
the ground that the annexes to the application are available only
in the language of
the
language designated by the parties as the language of cor-
respondence in a contract concluded between them

the Member State of

transmission,

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of
29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and
extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters is to be inter-
preted as meaning that the addressee of a document instituting the
proceedings which is to be served does not have the right to refuse
to accept that document, provided that it enables the addressee to
assert his rights in legal proceedings in the Member State of trans-
mission, where annexes are attached to that document consisting of
documentary evidence which is not in the language of the Member
State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmis-
sion which the addressee understands, but which has a purely
evidential
function and is not necessary for understanding the
subject matter of the claim and the cause of action.