CELEX: C2003/124/17
Language: en
Date: 2003-05-24 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 124/10               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          24.5.2003
The Commission cannot but find that the Italian Republic has            The Appellants claim that the Court should:
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.
                                                                              i)    dismissed the applications as inadmissible;
( 1) OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1.
                                                                              ii)   ordered the applicants to bear their own costs and,
                                                                                    jointly and severally, the costs incurred by the
                                                                                    Commission; and
                                                                              iii) ordered the interveners to bear their own costs.
                                                                        —     declare their applications for annulment admissible on
Appeal brought on 25 March 2003 by R.J. Reynolds                              the basis that the contested decisions were manifestly
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R.J. Reyn-                     illegal and to give final judgment in the matter; alterna-
olds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Inter-                            tively;
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                    —     declare their applications for annulment admissible and
Instance of the European Communities in joined cases                          refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01                           judgment on the merits; alternatively;
between Philip Morris International, Inc., R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R.J. Reyn-               —     refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
olds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Inter-                            consideration of the issue of admissibility joined to the
national Inc. and Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission                         merits and for judgment accordingly;
of the European Communities, supported by European
Parliament, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian
Republic, Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Fed-                —     order the Commission to pay the costs pursuant to
eral Republic of Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of                       Article 69, second paragraph of the Rules of Procedure
                         the Netherlands                                      of the Court of Justice.
                        (Case C-131/03 P)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (2003/C 124/17)
                                                                        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
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 January 2003             to commence proceedings cannot be considered to be a
by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court               decision which is open to challenge. Apart from the judgment
of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases           of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in
T-377/00 (1), T-379/00 (2), T-380/00 ( 2), T-260/01 (3) and             case 60/81, IMB v. Commission, which establishes admissi-
T-272/01 (4) between Philip Morris International, Inc.,                 bility where there are ‘exceptional circumstances’, the case-law
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp.,            clearly demonstrates that admissibility of new classes or types
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco                    of application is determined on a case by case basis.
International Inc., and Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission
of the European Communities, supported by European Parlia-
ment, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic,
Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Federal Republic of           The Court of First Instance misinterpreted the case-law when
Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands,                 it found that no legal effects ensued from the loss of the
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 possibility of obtaining a preliminary ruling from the Court of
Communities on 25 March 2003 by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco                   Justice of the European Communities as to the Commission’s
Holdings, Inc., established in Winston-Salem, North Carolina            competence to commence proceedings in a third state in an
(United States), RJR Acquisition Corp., established in Wilming-         attempt to recover allegedly unpaid customs duties and VAT.
ton, Delaware (United States), R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Com-               In concluding that commencing proceedings in a third country,
pany, established in Winston-Salem, North Carolina (United              rather than in the Community, did not have legal effects, the
States), R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International Inc., established in       Court of First Instance also misinterpreted the case-law that
Winston-Salem, North Carolina (United States) and Japan                 provides that where a definitive choice has been made for one
Tobacco, Inc., established in Tokyo (Japan), represented by             procedure over another, the decision embodying that choice
O.W. Brouwer, lawyer, and P. Lomas, solicitor.                          has legal effects for the purpose of Article 230.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.5.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 124/11
The Court of First Instance also failed to recognise that by the                      referring thereto on agricultural products and food-
contested decisions the Commission took a definitive position                         stuffs, as amended by Regulations (EC) No 1935/
as to its competence as a matter of EC law, which constitutes                         95 (2) and (EC) No 1804/1999 ( 3); by failing to adopt
legal effects within the meaning of the established case-law.                         the necessary measures to prevent misleading use of
                                                                                      that word, thereby infringing Article 2 in conjunc-
                                                                                      tion with Article 10a of the abovementioned
The Appellants also submit that the Court of First Instance                           amended regulation; and by failing to adopt
was incorrect to proceed on the basis that the District Court                         measures to prevent purchasers from being misled
could remedy the lack of a preliminary reference mechanism                            as to the method of manufacture or production
in the United States by applying Community law itself, that by                        of foodstuffs, thereby infringing Article 2 of the
declaring the application inadmissible, the Court of First                            abovementioned amended regulation in conjunction
Instance violated their right to effective judicial protection and                    with Article 2(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/13/EC of
that it misapplied and misinterpreted Community case-law on                           the European Parliament and of the Council of
the contestability of manifestly illegal measures.                                    20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws
                                                                                      of the Member States relating to the labelling,
                                                                                      presentation and advertising of foodstuffs ( 4); and
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
                                                                                —     by maintaining in the Comunidad Foral de Navarra,
Court, the Court of First Instance adopted a solution that was
contrary to Article 292 and the system of the Treaties.                               contrary to the same provisions, use of the term
                                                                                      ‘bio’, on its own or in combination with other terms,
                                                                                      for dairy products in respect of which that term has
( 1) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 23.
                                                                                      been customarily and continuously used when they
( 2) OJ C 79, 10.03.2001, p. 24.                                                      have not been obtained in accordance with organic
( 3) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002, p. 39.                                                       production methods,
( 4) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002, p. 45.
                                                                                the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under the abovementioned regulation and directive, in
                                                                                particular the provisions thereof as indicated above;
Action brought on 26 March 2003 by the Commission of                      —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                         (Case C-135/03)
                         (2003/C 124/18)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       Article 2 of Regulation No (EEC) 2092/91 prohibits the use of
represented by Gérard Berscheid, Legal Adviser, and Sara Pardo            derivatives of the term designating organic agricultural
Quintillán, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in          methods in any of the official languages of the European
Luxembourg.                                                               Community for products which have not been obtained by
                                                                          means of organic production methods. Accordingly, use of the
                                                                          term ‘bio’, cited expressly in Article 2 as an example of a
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              derived term indicating organic agriculture, is prohibited.
—     Declare that:
      —      by maintaining in its domestic legal system and in
             current usage the term ‘bio’, on its own or in               National legislation which allows the use of the term ‘bio’ in
             combination with other terms, for products which             the labelling, advertising material or commercial documents
             have not been obtained in accordance with organic            for a product which has not been manufactured in accordance
             production methods, thereby infringing Article 2 in          with Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91, such as Real Decreto
             conjunction with Article 5 of Council Regulation             (Royal Decree) 1852/1993 following the amendments inserted
             (EEC) No 2092/91 ( 1) of 24 June 1991 on organic             by Real Decreto 506/2001, infringes Regulation (EEC)
             production of agricultural products and indications          No 2092/91.