CELEX: C2003/146/37
Language: en
Date: 2003-06-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-131/03 P: Appeal brought on 25 March 2003 by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco International Inc., and Japan Tobacco, Inc., against the judgment delivered on 15 January 2003 by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01 between Philip Morris International, Inc., R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco International Inc. and Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission of the European Communities, supported by European Parliament, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic, Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands

C 146/22               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        21.6.2003
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                        International Inc., and Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities, supported by European Parlia-
                                                                          ment, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Federal Republic of
                                                                          Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands,
                                                                          was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Under the second paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty                   Communities on 25 March 2003 by R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
establishing the European Community, regulations are binding              Holdings, Inc., established in Winston-Salem, North Carolina
in their entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.           (United States), RJR Acquisition Corp., established in Wilming-
                                                                          ton, Delaware (United States), R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Com-
In the present case, Article 91 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94               pany, established in Winston-Salem, North Carolina (United
imposes an obligation on Member States to designate, in                   States), R. J. Reynolds Tobacco International Inc., established
accordance with their own national legal systems, national                in Winston-Salem, North Carolina (United States) and Japan
courts and tribunals of first and second instance with jurisdic-          Tobacco, Inc., established in Tokyo (Japan), represented by
tion in matters of infringement and validity of Community                 O. W. Brouwer, lawyer, and P. Lomas, solicitor.
trade marks, and to forward to the Commission a list
of designated Community trade mark courts and tribunals
indicating their names and territorial jurisdiction. The final
date for compliance with these obligations was 15 March
1997.
                                                                          The Appellants claim that the Court should:
The Commission cannot but find that the Italian Republic has
not yet forwarded to it the above information and has not thus
far designated any Community trade mark court or tribunal,                —    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
thereby also failing to meet its obligations under Article 91(1)               15 January 2003, whereby it:
of that regulation.
( 1) OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1.
                                                                               i)    dismissed the applications as inadmissible;
                                                                               ii)   ordered the applicants to bear their own costs and,
Appeal brought on 25 March 2003 by R.J. Reynolds                                     jointly and severally, the costs incurred by the
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R. J. Rey-                            Commission; and
nolds Tobacco Company, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Inter-
national Inc., and Japan Tobacco, Inc., against the judg-
ment delivered on 15 January 2003 by the Second
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First                           iii) ordered the interveners to bear their own costs.
Instance of the European Communities in joined cases
T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01
between Philip Morris International, Inc., R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R. J. Rey-                 —    declare their applications for annulment admissible on
nolds Tobacco Company, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Inter-                           the basis that the contested decisions were manifestly
national Inc. and Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission                          illegal and to give final judgment in the matter; alterna-
of the European Communities, supported by European                             tively
Parliament, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian
Republic, Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Fed-
eral Republic of Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of
                         the Netherlands                                  —    declare their applications for annulment admissible and
                                                                               refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
                                                                               judgment on the merits; alternatively
                        (Case C-131/03 P)
                         (2003/C 146/37)
                                                                          —    refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
                                                                               consideration of the issue of admissibility joined to the
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 January 2003                    merits and for judgment accordingly;
by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases
T-377/00 (1), T-379/00 (2), T-380/00 ( 2), T-260/01 (3) and
T-272/01 (4) between Philip Morris International, Inc.,                   —    order the Commission to pay the costs pursuant to
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp.,                  Article 69, second paragraph of the Rules of Procedure
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco                         of the Court of Justice.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.6.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 146/23
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
                                                                          of Genoa-Voltri by order of that Court of 10 March 2003
                                                                          in the case of Viacom Outdoor S.r.l. against Société
                                                                                            GIOTTO Immobilier S.a.r.l.
The Appellants submit that the Court of First Instance erred in
law in so far as it held that, as a matter of principle, a decision
to commence proceedings cannot be considered to be a
decision which is open to challenge. Apart from the judgment
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in case                                       (Case C-134/03)
60/81, IMB v. Commission, which establishes admissibility
where there are ‘exceptional circumstances’, the case-law
clearly demonstrates that admissibility of new classes or types
of application is determined on a case by case basis.                                             (2003/C 146/38)
The Court of First Instance misinterpreted the case-law when
it found that no legal effects ensued from the loss of the
possibility of obtaining a preliminary ruling from the Court of
Justice of the European Communities as to the Commission’s
competence to commence proceedings in a third state in an
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
attempt to recover allegedly unpaid customs duties and VAT.
                                                                          European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace
In concluding that commencing proceedings in a third country,
                                                                          (Magistrate) of Genoa-Voltri of 10 March 2003, received at the
rather than in the Community, did not have legal effects, the
                                                                          Court Registry on 25 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
Court of First Instance also misinterpreted the case-law that
                                                                          the case of Viacom Outdoor S.r.l. against Société GIOTTO
provides that where a definitive choice has been made for one
                                                                          Immobilier S.a.r.l. on the following questions:
procedure over another, the decision embodying that choice
has legal effects for the purpose of Article 230.
                                                                          1.   Is the entrusting to a public undertaking (municipalities)
                                                                               of the management of a tax and duties such as those
The Court of First Instance also failed to recognise that by the               described above, on a market which constitutes a substan-
contested decisions the Commission took a definitive position                  tial part of the common market and on which the public
as to its competence as a matter of EC law, which constitutes                  undertaking holds a dominant position inconsistent with:
legal effects within the meaning of the established case-law.
                                                                               a)    the application of Article 86 EC in conjunction with
The Appellants also submit that the Court of First Instance                          Article 82 EC;
was incorrect to proceed on the basis that the District Court
could remedy the lack of a preliminary reference mechanism
in the United States by applying Community law itself, that by
declaring the application inadmissible, the Court of First                     b)    the application of Article 86 EC in conjunction with
Instance violated their right to effective judicial protection and                   Article 49 EC.
that it misapplied and misinterpreted Community case-law on
the contestability of manifestly illegal measures.
                                                                          2.   Is the payment to that public undertaking of the income
                                                                               from the tax and charges in question inconsistent with:
Finally, it is submitted that, in concluding that any disputes as
to the Commission’s competence to commence proceedings
in the United States could be determined by the US District                    a)    the application of Article 86 EC in conjunction with
Court, the Court of First Instance adopted a solution that was                       Article 82 EC;
contrary to Article 292 and the system of the Treaties.
                                                                               b)    the application of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC, as
( 1) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 23.                                                      unlawful State aid (not notified) and incompatible
( 2) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 24.                                                      with the common market.
( 3) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 39.
( 4) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 45.