Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 55/14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 8.3.2003

broadcast of un-used Eurovision rights’, when such a ground
was not argued before it. By so doing, the Court of First
Instance deprived the EBU of its right, as a party to the
proceedings, to refute the points accepted by the Court. By
thus challenging a relatively marginal but no less essential
aspect such as the sub-licensing scheme rather than the
Eurovision system itself or the substance of the sub-licensing
scheme introduced at the behest of the Commission, the Court
of First Instance in fact requires the EBU to adjust that scheme
in order to grant access to non-members to rights which the
latter have not asked for nor, doubtless, wish to ask for.

**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-**
**richt Düsseldorf by order of that Court of 5 December**
**2002 in the case of GAT, Gesellschaft für Antriebstechnik**
**mbH & Co. KG against LuK Lamellen und Kupplungsbau**
**Beteiligungs KG**

**(Case C-4/03)**

(2003/C 55/23)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf) of 5 December
2002, received at the Court Registry on 6 January 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of GAT, Gesellschaft für
Antriebstechnik mbH & Co. KG against LuK Lamellen und
Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG on the following question:

Is Article 16(4) of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
(‘the Brussels Convention’) to be interpreted as meaning that
the exclusive jurisdiction conferred by that provision on the
courts of the Contracting State in which the deposit or
registration of a patent has been applied for, has taken place
or is under the terms of an international convention deemed
to have taken place only applies if proceedings (with erga
omnes effect) are brought to declare the patent invalid or are
proceedings deemed to be concerned with the validity of
patents within the meaning of the aforementioned provision
where the defendant in a patent infringement action or the
claimant in a declaratory action to establish that a patent is
not infringed pleads that the patent is invalid or a nullity and
that there is also no patent infringement for that reason,
irrespective of whether the court seised of the proceedings
considers the plea to be substantiated or unsubstantiated and
of when the plea is raised during the course of the proceedings.

**Action brought on 7 January 2003 by the Hellenic**
**Republic against the Community of the European Com-**
**munities**

**(Case C-5/03)**

(2003/C 55/24)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought on 7 January 2003 by the Hellenic Republic,
represented by Stilianis Xharitakis and Eleni Svolopoulou,
members of the State legal service, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Greek embassy, 27 Rue Marie-Adélaïde.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
Annul, or amend, Decision E/2002/4127 concerning
the exclusion from Community financing of certain
expenditure incurred by the Member States within the
context of the EAGGF — Guarantee section.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The financial corrections called in question by the Hellenic
Republic concern fruit and vegetables and financing for beef
cattle and goats and sheep.

As regards fruit andvegetables, the Hellenic Republic maintains
that the 2 % correction imposed for the years 1997 to 2001
concern non-existent or wholly isolated infringements of the
Community rules and must be annulled for being adopted
(a) on the basis of an erroneous interpretation and a misapplication of the provisions of Regulation No 729/70, as amended;
(b) on the basis of inadequate reasoning; (c) following a
misappraisal of the factual circumstances; (d) on the basis of a
manifest infringement of the limits of its margin of discretion,
and (e) of the principle of proportionality.

As regards financing for beefcattle and goats and sheep, the
applicant maintains that the Commission did not provide
adequate evidence of the degree of risk to which, in its
estimation, EAGGF Funds were exposed so as to ensure that
the amount of the corrections proposed was commensurate
with that risk. In its view the financial corrections in the
amount of 10 % or 5 % imposed in those sectors should be set
aside or else reduced to 2 %.