Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 239/2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 4.10.2003

—
were never the subject of consultation with the
Commission before being approved,

the Kingdom of Spain has infringed Articles 1, 4, 7 and 9
of Regulation No 3577/92 ( [1] ) and has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that regulation and the EC Treaty.

2. order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The Vigo estuary is within the territorial scope of Regulation
No 3577/92. That regulation was not designed to regulate
competence in a specific market. The fact that sea traffic
between the ports of the Vigo estuary is local does not preclude
the application of the principle of freedom to provide services.

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992
applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
transport with Member States (maritime cabotage), OJ L 364,
12.12.1992, p. 7.

**Appeal brought on 25 July 2003 by José Luis Zuazaga**
**Meabe against the order delivered on 28 April 2003 by**
**the Court of First Instance of the European Communities**
**(Second Chamber) in Case T-15/03 between José Luis**
**Zuazaga Meabe and the Office for Harmonisation in**
**the Internal Market (OHIM), the other party to the**
**proceedings before the Board of Appeal being Banco de**
**Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A.**

**(Case C-325/03 P)**

(2003/C 239/03)

An appeal against the order delivered on 28 April 2003 by the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-15/03 between José Luis Zuazaga
Meabe and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 25 July by José Luis Zuazaga Meabe, represented by José Antonio Calderón Chavero and Natalia Moya
Fernández, with an address for service in Luxembourg, the
other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
being Banco de Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1. quash the order of the Court of First Instance (Second
Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2003 in Case T-15/03,
the applicant having shown all the requisite care and
attention for the transmission of documents to the Court
of First Instance;

2. consequently, to refer the case back to the Court of First
Instance for a declaration that the action for annulment
in Case T-15/03 is admissible, and for proceedings to
continue before the Court of First Instance on the basis
of the claims submitted in the application against the
decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of
24 October 2002 in Case R 918/2001-2, concerning
opposition proceedingsbetween José Luis Zuazaga Meabe
and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

—
Infringement of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of
Justice:the applicant pleads the existence of unfavourable,
unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances which were
beyond his control, which prove the existence of unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure. The confirmation
by registered letter lodged with the Spanish postal services
on 7 January 2003 of the application, transmitted to the
Court of First Instance by fax on 3 January 2003, was
ineffective for reasons beyond the applicant’s control.
The principle of proportionality therefore requires the
Court of First Instance to adopt a flexible approach.

—
Infringement of Articles 102 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court of First Instance and Article 81(2) of the Rules
of Procedure of the Court of Justice: the applicant submits
that, to the ordinary time-limit extended by ten days on
account of distance may be allowed an additional ten
days for a definite confirmation of the document transmitted by fax.

—
Infringement of Article 103 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court of First Instance and Article 82 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Court of Justice: the applicant claims
that the principle of proportionality can and should be
applied to set the deadline in a flexible manner in cases
such as this, where the applicant sent the document in
advance by fax.

4.10.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 239/3

—
Infringement of Article 43(3) of the Rules of Procedure
of the Court of First Instance: the applicant submits that
in the present case the appeal was not accepted on the
grounds of alleged failure to observe the period of
confirmation, rather than the procedural time-limit which
was complied with by transmission of the fax.

—
Infringement of Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure
of the Court of First Instance: the applicant submits, in
accordance with the principle of proportionality, that to
the existing procedural time-limit, extended by ten days
on account of distance, may be added ten additional days
in order to validate an application and a list of annexes
previously sent by fax.

**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Areiou Pagou**
**by order of that Court of 31 March 2003 in the case of**
**Trapeza tis Ellados AE against Banque Artesia**

**(Case C-329/03)**

(2003/C 239/04)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Areiou Pagou
(Supreme Court of Cassation) of 31 March 2003, received at
the Court Registry on 28 July 2003, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Trapeza tis Ellados AE against Banque Artesia on
the following question:

Are (a) bonds issued by a bank in the form of a limited
company belonging, by virtue of its shares, to the State, with a
maturity of one year from issue which are dealt in on the
money market, where they are quoted, or (b) bonds issued by
a bank in the form of a limited company with a maturity of
one year from issue which are dealt in on the money market,
where they are quoted, governed by Article 4 of the First
Directive of the Council of the European Communities (921/
60) ( [1] ), List D and item VI of the Nomenclature, which reads
‘Short-term investments in Treasury bills and other securities
normally dealt in on the money market’, as that provision
stands according to its spirit and the purpose sought or is to
be interpreted under a possible doctrine in international trade
of common experience, to the effect that securities such as
the one-year bonds in ETVA at issue constitute short-term
investments?

Further, is the use in a bank, as a credit institution, of balances
on a deposit account, funds being placed in that account, as
provided for in Decision 1097/1959 of the Monetary Committee referred to in this judgment (with the proceeds of
imported foreign currency, and so forth), as deposits in
national currency, convertible into foreign currency, governed
by Article 4 of that same directive, List D and item IX of the
Nomenclature, which reads: ‘Opening and placing of funds on
current or deposit accounts, repatriation or use of balances on
current or deposit accounts with credit institutions’, as that
provision stands according to its spirit and the purpose sought
by that provision?

( [1] ) English special edition: Series I Chapter 1959-1962 p. 49.

**Action brought on 29 July 2003 by the Commission**
**of the European Communities against the Portuguese**
**Republic**

**(Case C-332/03)**

(2003/C 239/05)

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 July
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Thomas van Rijn and Ana Maria Alves Vieira,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1) declare that:

—
by failing to adopt appropriate rules for the use of
the quotas allocated to it for the fishing years from
1994 to 1996;

—
by failing to ensure compliance with Community
legislation in the field of conservation, by means of
sufficient supervision of fishing activities and adquate inspection of the fishing fleet and of the unloading
and recording of catches in the fishing years 1994 to
1996;