Case C-109/07: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Prud'homie de pêche (France)) — Jonathan Pilato v Jean-Claude Bourgault (Meaning of court or tribunal of a Member State — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)
Date: 2008-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: conservation of fish stocks, fishery management, fishing area, fishing net, fishing regulations, interpretation of the law

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/15

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Confcooperative Friuli Venezia Giulia (C-23/07),
Luigi Soini
(C-23/07 and C-24/07), Azienda Agricola Vivai
Pinato Mario e figlio (C-23/07), Cantina Produttori Cormòns
Soc. cons. arl (C-24/07)

Defendants: Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, alimentari e fore-
stali and Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo
regionale del Lazio — Interpretation of Regulations 1493/1999
and 753/2002 as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1429/2004 of 9 August 2004 amending Regulation (EC)
No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council
Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, desig-
nation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector
(OJ 2004 L 263, p. 11) — Interpretation of
products
Article 34(2) EC — Designation of wines produced in Hungary
and in the Community — Abolition of the designation ‘Tocai
friulano’ — Discrimination against the producers and users of
that designation as compared to the producers and users of
other designations

Operative part of the order

3. The second subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC does not preclude the
provisions of Regulation No 753/2002, reproduced in Regulation
No 1429/2004, prohibiting the use of the name ‘Tocai’ to desig-
nate and present certain Italian quality wines produced in specified
regions at the end of a transitional period expiring on 31 March
2007.

4. Article 19(2) of Regulation No 753/2002 must be interpreted as
meaning that it does not preclude the provisions of Regulation
No 753/2002, reproduced in Regulation No 1429/2004, prohi-
biting the use of the name ‘Tocai’ to designate and present certain
Italian quality wines produced in specified regions at the end of a
transitional period expiring on 31 March 2007.

5. Article 50 of Regulation No 1493/1999 must be interpreted as
meaning that, in implementing the provisions of Articles 23 and
24 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Prop-
erty Rights, which constitutes Annex 1C to the Agreement estab-
lishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO), signed in Marrakesh
on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC
of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the
European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of
the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotia-
tions (1986-1994) and in particular the provision in Article 24(6)
of that agreement, those provisions do not preclude the adoption of
measures such as those laid down in Regulation No 753/2002,
reproduced in Regulation No 1429/2004, prohibiting the use of
the name ‘Tocai’ to designate and present certain Italian quality
wines produced in specified regions at the end of a transitional
period expiring on 31 March 2007.

(1) OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

the Republic of Malta,

the Republic of Poland,

the Republic of Lithuania,

concerning the conditions of accession of
the Czech
1. The Act
the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the
Republic,
the Republic of
Republic of Latvia,
Hungary,
the
Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments
to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded must be
interpreted as meaning that, under Article 2 of that Act, the provi-
sions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April
2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation
(EC) No 1493/1999 as
the description, designation,
regards
presentation and protection of certain wine sector products, in so far
as they prohibit the use of
to designate and
present certain Italian quality wines produced in specified regions at
the end of a transitional period expiring on 31 March 2007, form
an integral part of the acquis communautaire existing on 1 May
2004 and, after being reproduced in Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1429/2004 of 9 August 2004 amending Regulation
No 753/2002, continued to apply after that date.

the name ‘Tocai’

Order of
the Court (First Chamber) of 14 May 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Prud'homie de
pêche (France)) — Jonathan Pilato v Jean-Claude Bourgault

(Case C-109/07) (1)

(Meaning of court or tribunal of a Member State — Lack of
jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

(2008/C 209/20)

Language of the case: French

2. Article 53 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May
1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine consti-
tutes an adequate legal basis on which the Commission of the
European Communities may adopt the provisions of Regulation
No 753/2002, reproduced in Regulation No 1429/2004, prohi-
biting the use of the name ‘Tocai’ to designate and present certain
Italian quality wines produced in specified regions at the end of a
transitional period expiring on 31 March 2007.

Referring court

Prud'homie de pêche

C 209/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.8.2008

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant: Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias

Applicant: Jonathan Pilato

Defendant: Jean-Claude Bourgault

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Prud'homie de pêche de
Martigues — Interpretation of Article 11a of Council Regulation
(EC) No 894/97 of 29 April 1997 laying down certain technical
measures for the conservation of fishery resources (OJ 1997
L 132, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No
1239/98 of 8 June 1998 (OJ 1998 L 171, p. 1) — Definition of
‘drift-net’ — Whether that definition includes the ‘thonaille’ —
Environmental objective of the prohibitive measure laid down
in Article 11a — Validity of this provision in the light, in par-
ticular, of the legal basis used for its adoption

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly does not
have jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Prud'homie de
pêche de Martigues by decision of 17 December 2006.

Re:

the Court

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de
Justicia de Canarias (High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands)
— Interpretation of
in Case
the judgment of
C-124/96 which found that national legislation placing restric-
tions on exemption from VAT of certain services closely
connected with the practice of sport or physical education is
incompatible with Article 13A(1)(m) of Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws
of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977
L 145, p. 1) — Application to the Canary Islands

Operative part of the order

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Superior
de Justicia de Canarias, by decision of 26 November 2006, is inad-
missible.

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

(1) OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 April 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Superior de Justicia de Canarias (Spain)) — Club Náutico
de Gran Canaria v Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias

(Case C-186/07) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive —
Exemptions — Services connected with the practice of sport or
physical education — Application to the Canary Islands —
Purely internal situation — Referral — Manifest inadmissi-
bility of the reference for a preliminary ruling)

(2008/C 209/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 April 2008 —
Focus Magazine Verlag GmbH v Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Merant
GmbH

(Case C-344/07 P) (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion —
Word mark ‘FOCUS’)

(2008/C 209/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias (Spain)

Applicant: Focus Magazine Verlag GmbH (represented by: M.
Herrmann and B. Müller, Rechtsanwälte)

Parties

Applicant: Club Náutico de Gran Canaria

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G.
Schneider, agent), Merant GmbH (represented by: A. Schultz,
Rechtsanwält)