Case C-247/07: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2003/35/EC — Drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment — Public participation — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
Date: 2008-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, access to information, access to the courts, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, decision-making, development plan, environmental protection, national implementing measure, transparency in decision-making

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/3

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Theologos-Grigorios Khatzithanasis

Applicant: Krystyna Zablocka-Weyhermüller

Defendants:
(Organismos Epangelmatikis Ekpaidefsis kai Katartisis)

Igeias kai Kinonikis Allilengiis, OEEK

Ipourgos

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias —
Interpretation of Articles 149 and 150 EC and of Council Direc-
tive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for
the recognition of professional education and training to supple-
ment Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25) — Failure to
recognise, in the host Member State, a vocational training quali-
fication conferring a right to pursue the profession of optician
in the Member State where that qualification was awarded —
Training received,
for the greater part, at an establishment
which lawfully operates in the host Member State, but which is
not recognised, under the legislation of that State, as an educa-
tional establishment

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sozialgericht Stuttgart —
Compatibility with Community law of national provisions
limiting the exportability of benefits for surviving spouses of
victims of war (Hinterbliebenenversorgung)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18(1) EC is to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a
Member State under which the latter refuses to pay certain benefits
granted to surviving spouses of victims of war solely because they are
domiciled in the territory of certain specific Member States.

Operative part of the judgment

(1) OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.

Articles 1(a), 3 and 4 of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June
1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional
education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, as
amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 14 May 2001, must be interpreted as meaning that
the competent authorities of a host Member State are required, under
Article 3 of that directive, subject to the application of Article 4 of
that directive, to recognise a diploma awarded by a competent authority
in another Member State even though that diploma attests to educa-
tion and training received, in whole or in part, at an establishment
located in the host Member State which, according to the legislation of
that State, is not recognised as an educational establishment.

(1) OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 December
a preliminary ruling from the
2008 (reference
(Germany)) — Krystyna
Sozialgericht

for
Stuttgart

Zablocka-Weyhermüller v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-221/07) (1)

(Benefits granted to surviving spouses of victims of war —
territory —
Condition of

on the national

residence

Article 18(1) EC)

(2009/C 19/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Sozialgericht Stuttgart

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December
the European Communities v
2008 — Commission of

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-247/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive
2003/35/EC — Drawing up of certain plans and programmes
relating to the environment — Public participation — Failure
to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2009/C 19/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Konstantinidis and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (represented by: V. Jackson, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to
comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public partici-
the drawing up of certain plans and
pation in respect of
programmes relating to the environment and amending with
regard to public participation and access to justice Council
Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17)

C 19/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.1.2009

Operative part of the judgment

2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in
respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating
to the environment and amending with regard to public participa-
tion and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and
96/61/EC, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 December
the European Communities v
2008 — Commission of

Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-249/07) (1)

to

fulfil

of a Member State

obligations —
(Failure
Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Directive 92/43/EC — Measure
having equivalent
the
planting of oysters and mussels of native species from other
Member States — Justification — Protection of the life of
animals — Maintenance of biodiversity and conservation of
fish species in the interest of fisheries)

effect — Prior authorisation for

(2009/C 19/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

(1) OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 November
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of
Appeal
(Civil Division) — United
Kingdom) — Intel Corporation Inc. v Cpm United
Kingdom Limited

(England and Wales)

(Case C-252/07) (1)

(Directive 89/104/EEC — Trade marks — Article 4(4)(a) —
Trade marks with a reputation — Protection against the use
of a later identical or similar mark — Use which takes or
would take unfair advantage of, or is or would be detrimental
to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade
mark)

(2009/C 19/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Intel Corporation Inc.

Defendant: Cpm United Kingdom Limited

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Konstantinidis and S. Noe, acting as Agents)

Re:

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M.
Wissels and C. ten Dam, Agents)

Re:

Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 28 EC
and 30 EC — System of prior authorisation for the planting of
oysters and mussels from other Member States in Netherlands
coastal waters

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by instituting a system of prior authorisation for the
in Netherlands coastal waters, of oysters and mussels
planting,
coming lawfully from other Member States and being of species
native to the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC;

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (Civil
Division) — Interpretation of Articles 4(4)(a) and 5(2) of First
Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approx-
imate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks
(OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Earlier mark having a reputation —
Criteria to be taken into account in order to establish whether
there is a link within the meaning of Case C-408/01 Adidas-
Salomon AG and Adidas-Benelux BV

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 4(4)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of
21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that
whether there is a link, within the meaning of Case C-408/01
Adidas-Salomon and Adidas Benelux, between the earlier mark
with a reputation and the later mark must be assessed globally,
taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the
case.