CELEX: C2000/192/12
Language: en
Date: 2000-07-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-114/00: Action brought on 27 March 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

C 192/6                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.7.2000
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                of registering the sign with a clarifying disclaimer (dis-
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with European               claiming any exclusive right in the words ‘company’ and
     Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December                  ‘line’).
     1994 on packaging and packaging waste within the prescribed
     period, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations        There is nothing in the contested decisions to indicate that
     under that directive;                                                     any consideration was given to the rectification provision
                                                                               contained in Article 12(b) of Regulation No 40/94. In the
2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                              case of the sign ‘Companyline’, this may explain the reason
                                                                               why the grounds of exclusion laid down in Article 7(1)(b)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                      and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 were assessed in accord-
                                                                               ance with excessively stringent criteria.
                                                                               The Court of First Instance wrongly omitted to have regard
                                                                               to the defendant’s failure, contrary to Article 38(2) and (3)
                                                                               of Regulation No 40/94, Rule 11(2) of the implementing
Appeal brought on 20 March 2000 by DKV Deutsche                                regulation and point 8.13.2 of the examination guidelines,
Krankenversicherung AG against the judgment delivered                          to bring pressure to bear for the inclusion of a disclaimer.
on 12 January 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court                          In reaching its decision concerning the grounds of
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case                          exclusion set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 40/94,
T-19/99 between DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung                               the Court of First Instance wrongly omitted to have regard,
AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                            in addition, to the registration practice followed in all the
               Market (trade marks and designs)                                Member states of the Community.
                          (Case C-104/00 P)                               — Infringement of substantive law and misuse of discretion-
                                                                               ary powers: the applicant considers that the contradictions
                           (2000/C 192/11)                                     and omissions on the part of the defendant clearly and
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 January 2000                    objectively show that the decisive aim of the contested
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                        decision was to refuse registration of the sign ‘Company-
the European Communities in Case T-19/99 between DKV                           line’ under any circumstances, in disregard of the legal
Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG and the Office for Harmon-                     situation and of the defendant’s duty to promote harmonis-
isation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)                       ation. The purely formal argument as to the co-existence
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                        of Community trade mark law in tandem with the national
Communities on 20 March 2000 by DKV Deutsche Kranken-                          trade mark laws of the Member States is unconvincing,
versicherung AG, represented by Stephan von Petersdorff-                       since the Office for Harmonisation reached its decision
Campen, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs von Rospatt, von der                           without any objective determination of the facts, particu-
Osten, Pross, of Kaiser-Friedrich-Ring 56, D-40547 Düsseldorf,                 larly as regards the decision-making practice followed in
assisted by Alfred Maxton, patent attorney, of Messrs Maxton                   the United Kingdom, and failed to weigh up and reconcile
& Langmaack, of Goltsteinstrasse 93, D-50968 Cologne, with                     the interests involved in such a way as to fulfil its obligation
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc                   to ensure co-existence.
Loesch, of Messrs De Bandt, van Heckel, Lagae & Loesch,
11 Rue Goethe, L-1011 Luxembourg.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
— set aside the contested decisions;                                      Action brought on 27 March 2000 by the Kingdom of
                                                                          Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                                          ties
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                    (Case C-114/00)
— Infringement of substantive law, in particular Arti-
     cle 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94: excessively                                       (2000/C 192/12)
     stringent criteria were applied in assessing the eligibility
     for registration of the sign ‘Companyline’. Instead of               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     assessing the overall impression produced by the sign                ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     ‘Companyline’, the contested decisions merely considered,            Communities on 27 March 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain,
     in isolation, the component words ‘company’ and ‘line’               represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado,
     together making up the composite sign. The numerous                  acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     possible meanings said to attach to the words by way                 the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.
     of association are not apparent. Having regard to the
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
     registration practice followed in the Member States of the
     Community (including English-speaking Member States)                 1) annul the Commission’s decision of 22 December 1999
     and the defendant’s decision-making practice in relation to               concerning aid to finance operating capital in the agricul-
     comparable signs, registration of the sign ‘Companyline’                  tural sector in Extremadura;
     should not have been refused under Article 7(1)(b) of
     Regulation No 40/94. No use was made of the possibility              2) order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 8.7.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 192/7
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   products to agricultural industries in Extremadura. It is
                                                                                  intended solely to promote stable relations between
— Manifest error of assessment, in that part of the aid                           local producers and local processing industries, by
    declared by the Commission to be incompatible has not                         ensuring supplies of raw materials to the latter (this
    been paid; no aid payments were effected after 30 June                        being something which the market alone seems to be
    1998.                                                                         unable to guarantee).
                                                                              — The Commission maintains that the criteria laid down
— Infringement of Articles 253 EC and 87(1) EC, on account                        in its Communication on aid in the form of subsidised
    of the absence of a statement of reasons concerning the                       short-term loans (OJ C 44 of 16.2.1996, p. 2) are not
    effect on trade between Member States and non-fulfilment                      fulfilled. However, if the aid is not granted to all
    of the criterion of the existence of such an effect on trade:                 operators in the agricultural sector, the products
    the contested decision lacks even the minimum statement                       concerned are determined in a non-discriminatory
    of reasons which must be given regarding the effect on                        manner as regards aid to industries which enter into
    trade between Member States of aid granted in a form                          contracts for the processing of the raw materials
    which distorts or threatens to distort competition in the                     purchased by them. Moreover, there is no discrimi-
    common market.                                                                nation, since the excluding criterion is not that a
                                                                                  particular sector must be involved but that operators
— Infringement of Article 87(3)(a) EC, in conjunction with                        in any of the sectors concerned must have agreed to
    Article 253 EC:                                                               standardise their contractual relations; any sector
                                                                                  which approves a regional contract becomes eligible
    — According to the Commission, aid to industries granted                      to receive aid. Furthermore, the interest-rate rebates
         prior to 30 June 1998 cannot fall within any of the                      exclusively affect the financing arrangements for the
         derogations, provided for in Article 87(3), since it                     purchase of agricultural products pursuant to the
         adversely affects trading conditions by imposing                         approved contracts. The aid has a lasting effect on the
         restrictions on the free movement of goods. However,                     development of the sector, since it has contributed to
         that assertion is incorrect: such an adverse effect on                   the establishment of coordinated, stable contractual
         trade may prevent Article 87(3)(a) from applying, but                    relations between the industry and the primary sector,
         not Article 87(3)(a).                                                    and its effects have proved capable of developing an
                                                                                  industrial framework and of providing security for the
                                                                                  rural population. Finally, in view of the amounts
    — The Commission considers that the derogation con-                           received by the farmers concerned, it is difficult to see
         tained in Article 87(3)(a) EC is inapplicable because the                in what way the common organisation of the market
         aid was granted not as regional aid but as operating                     for the products in question can have been affected.
         aid for the agricultural sector. The Commission’s
         reasoning is inconsistent. The aid is intended to
         promote economic development in a region where the
         standard of living is low and there is very serious
         unemployment. In particular, the industrial aid scheme
         had a clear social purpose, in that it sought to introduce
         stable relations between producers and processors,
         protecting them by means of officially approved
         contracts for the sale and purchase of raw materials             Action brought on 11 April 2000 by the Commission of
         and thereby ensuring supplies to the processing indus-           the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
         tries and the location of those industries in the
         production areas. In view of the foregoing, the Com-
         mission should have reasoned that the aid did not fall                                   (Case C-139/00)
         within the scope of Article 87(3)(a) EC, despite the fact
         that the measures concerned are specific rather than                                     (2000/C 192/13)
         general. It should also, at the very least, have provided
         justification for its decision, adopted in the exercise of
         its discretion, not to authorise small-scale aid designed        An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
         to mitigate an abnormally serious situation within the           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 April
         Community. By failing to do so, it has infringed                 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
         Article 253 EC.                                                  represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
— Infringement of Article 87(3)(c) EC:                                    Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, C 254, Wagner Centre.
    — The Commission maintains that the aid scheme in                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
         question restricts the free movement of goods
         (Article 28 EC), in that it may adversely affect trade.          (1) declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary in
         That does not prevent the derogation from applying.                  order to ensure, with regard to the three automatic waste
         The scheme does not preclude undertakings in other                   incineration plants located at Mazo and Barlovento on the
         Member States from introducing and selling their                     island of Palma, the application of: