CELEX: C2003/055/24
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-5/03: Action brought on 7 January 2003 by the Hellenic Republic against the Community of the European Communities

C 55/14                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         8.3.2003
broadcast of un-used Eurovision rights’, when such a ground             Action brought on 7 January 2003 by the Hellenic
was not argued before it. By so doing, the Court of First               Republic against the Community of the European Com-
Instance deprived the EBU of its right, as a party to the                                           munities
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                                           (Case C-5/03)
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                                 (2003/C 55/24)
in order to grant access to non-members to rights which the
latter have not asked for nor, doubtless, wish to ask for.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties 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.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt Düsseldorf by order of that Court of 5 December                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
2002 in the case of GAT, Gesellschaft für Antriebstechnik
mbH & Co. KG against LuK Lamellen und Kupplungsbau
                        Beteiligungs KG                                 —     Annul, or amend, Decision E/2002/4127 concerning
                                                                              the exclusion from Community financing of certain
                                                                              expenditure incurred by the Member States within the
                          (Case C-4/03)                                       context of the EAGGF — Guarantee section.
                         (2003/C 55/23)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                  The financial corrections called in question by the Hellenic
Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf) of 5 December             Republic concern fruit and vegetables and financing for beef
2002, received at the Court Registry on 6 January 2003, for a           cattle and goats and sheep.
preliminary ruling in the case of GAT, Gesellschaft für
Antriebstechnik mbH & Co. KG against LuK Lamellen und
Kupplungsbau Beteiligungs KG on the following question:
                                                                        As regards fruit and vegetables, the Hellenic Republic maintains
                                                                        that the 2 % correction imposed for the years 1997 to 2001
                                                                        concern non-existent or wholly isolated infringements of the
Is Article 16(4) of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the              Community rules and must be annulled for being adopted
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters                (a) on the basis of an erroneous interpretation and a misappli-
(‘the Brussels Convention’) to be interpreted as meaning that           cation of the provisions of Regulation No 729/70, as amended;
the exclusive jurisdiction conferred by that provision on the           (b) on the basis of inadequate reasoning; (c) following a
courts of the Contracting State in which the deposit or                 misappraisal of the factual circumstances; (d) on the basis of a
registration of a patent has been applied for, has taken place          manifest infringement of the limits of its margin of discretion,
or is under the terms of an international convention deemed             and (e) of the principle of proportionality.
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              As regards financing for beefcattle and goats and sheep, the
where the defendant in a patent infringement action or the              applicant maintains that the Commission did not provide
claimant in a declaratory action to establish that a patent is          adequate evidence of the degree of risk to which, in its
not infringed pleads that the patent is invalid or a nullity and        estimation, EAGGF Funds were exposed so as to ensure that
that there is also no patent infringement for that reason,              the amount of the corrections proposed was commensurate
irrespective of whether the court seised of the proceedings             with that risk. In its view the financial corrections in the
considers the plea to be substantiated or unsubstantiated and           amount of 10 % or 5 % imposed in those sectors should be set
of when the plea is raised during the course of the proceedings.        aside or else reduced to 2 %.