Case C-495/08: Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2008-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental impact, impact study, mining extraction

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/17

Appeal brought on 17 November 2008 by Prana Haus
GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Eighth Chamber) delivered on 17 September 2008 in Case
T-226/07 Prana Haus GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

of reasons as regards the extent to which the term ‘PRANA-
HAUS’ could be considered to be descriptive of the specific
goods and services. In addition, failing to have regard for the
case-law of the Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance
assumed that there was a need for the designation ‘PRANA-
HAUS’ to be kept free for competitors.

(Case C-494/08 P)

(2009/C 32/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Prana Haus GmbH (represented by: N. Hebeis,
Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Eighth Chamber) of 17 September
2008 in Case T-226/07 Prana Haus GmbH v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceed-
ings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject-matter of the dispute is the question whether the
term ‘PRANAHAUS’ may be registered as a trade mark for the
goods ‘recorded image and sound recording carriers of all kind; printed
matter’ and for ‘retail services … for essential commodities …’. The
Court of First Instance held that ‘PRANAHAUS’ was an indica-
tion directly and specifically describing the goods and services
in question.

In its appeal, the appellant claims infringement of the absolute
grounds for refusal of protection of a descriptive indication
under Article 7(1)(c)of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.

According to the appellant, the Court of First Instance inter-
preted too broadly the legal term ‘to designate’ in Article 7(1)(c),
contrary to the actual wording of the provision and the case-law
of the Court of Justice. Furthermore, it erred in the assessment
as to whether the designation ‘PRANAHAUS’ showed a suffi-
ciently direct and specific relationship to the goods and services
in question that the relevant public could ‘without further thought
the goods and
or analysis’ see in the term a ‘designation’ of
services within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c). In doing so, the
Court of First Instance failed to take into account the fact that
several complex logical steps are required in order to identify
even a hidden meaning in the term ‘PRANAHAUS’.
In that
context the Court of First Instance also failed to consider facts
which would have had a bearing on the resolution of the case
and as a result distorted the factual basis. Furthermore, the
Court of First Instance failed to provide the required statement

Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-495/08)

(2009/C 32/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: P. Oliver and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that by

failing to provide that individual decisions not to carry out
an environmental impact assessment pursuant to Article 4(2)
of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) as amended must be
supported by sufficient reasoning, and

failing to make ROMP applications lodged in Wales prior to
15 November 2000 subject
that
Directive,

to the requirements of

the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that Directive.

2. order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

if,

for whatever reason,

Under the United Kingdom legislation reasons must be given
only if an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is found to
be necessary:
the relevant planning
authority or the Secretary of State reaches the conclusion that
no EIA is necessary, then nothing in the Regulations requires
any reasons to be given in support of that conclusion. The
Commission submits that individual decisions taken by Member
States not to carry out an EIA pursuant to Article 4(2) to (4) of
the directive must be supported by adequate reasoning.

C 32/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.2.2009

Furthermore, the United Kingdom has not enacted legislation in
Wales which would make Review of Mineral Planning (‘ROMP’)
applications subject to the requirements of the directive.

In addition, the fact that this contract was concluded without a
prior open call for Community tenders, so as to ensure access
on a non-discriminatory basis in respect of all Community ship-
to the requirements of Regulation
owners,
No 3577/92.

runs counter

(1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of
certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 175,
p. 40).

(1) OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7.

Action brought on 20 November 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v Republic of Malta

Action brought on 21 November 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-508/08)

(2009/C 32/28)

Language of the case: Maltese

(Case C-509/08)

(2009/C 32/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Aquilina, K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

Parties

Defendant: Republic of Malta

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Sénéchal and I. Hadjiyiannis, acting as Agents)

Form of order sought

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

— declare that, by signing an exclusive public service contract
with ‘Gozo Channel Company Ltd’
(GCCL) on 16 April
2004, without having undertaken a prior call for tenders,
the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations, in
particular under Articles 1 and 4 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the prin-
ciple of freedom to provide services to maritime transport
within Member States (maritime cabotage) (1);

— order the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

So as to be able to conclude a public service contract for the
provision of cabotage services between Malta and Gozo, the
Maltese authorities have to demonstrate that such a contract is
necessary so as to impose those public service obligations that it
deems necessary to ensure an appropriate service for the above-
mentioned route, and that the contract is adequate in the light
of its aims.

While the Commission readily acknowledges that a satisfactory
service is paramount for the Malta-Gozo route, it states on the
other hand that the Maltese authorities have in no manner
provided this proof; in this sense, they have not even sought to
establish if one or more private operators were capable of
providing this service on the same conditions on a purely
commercial basis. In addition, they have not shown that the
exclusivity given to GCCL is an appropriate and adequate means
to achieve this end.

Form of order sought

the European Parliament and of

— Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2004/108/EC of
the
Council of 15 December 2004 on the approximation of the
the Member States relating to electromagnetic
laws of
compatibility and repealing Directive 89/336/EEC (1), and in
any event, by not communicating them to the Commission,
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under that directive;

— Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2004/108/EC expired on
20 January 2007. At the date the present action was brought,
the defendant had not yet adopted the necessary implementing
measures or, in any event, it had not yet communicated them to
the Commission.

(1) OJ 2004 L 390, p. 24.