You are on page 1of 2

24.5.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 124/13

Action brought on 31 March 2003 by the Commission of The applicant claims that the Court should:
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force the
(Case C-142/03) laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
to comply with Commission Directive 2000/52/EC ( 1) of
26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the
(2003/C 124/21) transparency of financial relations between Member
States and public undertakings, the Portuguese Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of
Directive 2000/52/EC;
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March — declare in any event that, by failing to communicate
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
forthwith those provisions to the Commission, the Portu-
represented by Fernando Castillo de la Torre and Niels Bertil guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Rasmusen, members of its Legal Service, with an address for Article 2 of Directive 2000/52/EC;
service in Luxembourg.
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Kingdom of Spain has infringed Article 91


of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December Pleas in law and main arguments
1993 on the Community trade mark ( 1) by having
failed to communicate to the Commission the list of
Community trade mark courts; The period prescribed for implementation of the directive
expired on 31 July 2001.
— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1 ) OJ L 193 of 29 July 2000, p. 75.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Member States are under an obligation to designate,


within three years following entry into force of the regulation,
‘Community trade mark courts’ and to communicate to the
Commission their names and their territorial jurisdiction. That
information should have been communicated by 15 March Appeal brought on 31 March 2003 by Philip Morris
1997 at the latest. International, Inc., against the judgment delivered on
15 January 2003 by the Second Chamber (Extended
Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
( 1) OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1. 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 Hold-
ings, 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,
Action brought on 31 March 2003 by Commission of the Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Federal Repub-
European Communities against the Portuguese Republic lic of Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the
Netherlands
(Case C-144/03)
(Case C-146/03 P)
(2003/C 124/22)
(2003/C 124/23)

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before


the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 January 2003
represented by M. França and J. Flett, acting as Agents, with an by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court
address for service in Luxembourg. of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases
C 124/14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 24.5.2003

T-377/00 (1), T-379/00 (2), T-380/00 ( 2), T-260/01 (3) and — failing to consider that the contested acts produced
T-272/01 (4) between Philip Morris International, Inc., legal effects through the mere fact that they deprived
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., the Appellant of certain legal protections and advan-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco tages within the Community legal order;
International Inc., and Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission
of the European Communities, supported by European Parlia- — considering that case C-345/00 P, FNAB, can be
ment, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic, applied to the instant case;
Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Federal Republic of
Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands,
— failing to consider that the contested acts are open
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
to judicial review since they are manifestly illegal;
Communities on 31 March 2003 by Philip Morris Inter- and finally
national, Inc., established in Rye Brook, New York (United
States), represented by E. Morgan de Rivery and F. Marchini
Camia, lawyers. — as a first alternative, if the Court of First Instance’s
reasoning is correct (quod non) that only the
decision of the US District Court of the Eastern
district of New York produces legal effects, then the
The Appellant claims that the Court should: Court of First Instance erred in law by considering,
notwithstanding the circumstances of the case, that
the contested acts cannot be reviewed under
— annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Article 230 EC;
15 January 2003 in joined cases T-377/00, T-379/00,
T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01; and — as a second alternative, if the Court of First Instance’s
reasoning is correct (quod non) that it is not possible
to separately review a decision to initiate a law suit,
— give final judgment on the issue of admissibility, pursuant it should have joined the question of admissibility
to Article 61 of the Protocol on the Statutes of the to the substance.
Court of Justice, by declaring the Appellant’s actions for
annulment admissible and refer the case back to the
2) The Court of First Instance contradicted itself on an
Court of First Instance for examination of the substance
essential point of law.
of the case; or
3) The Court of First Instance violated Article 292 EC.
— failing that, refer the case back to the Court of First
Instance for judgment on the admissibility issue and 4) The Court of First Instance violated the right to effective
subsequently and/or simultaneously on the substance of judicial protection.
the case; and

(1 ) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 23.


— order the Commission to pay the Appellant’s costs before (2 ) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 24.
the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice. (3 ) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 39.
(4 ) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 45.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant contends that, in the contested judgment, the


Court of First Instance made the following errors of law: Action brought on 3 April 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against Ireland

1) The Court of First Instance violated the concept of a


challengeable act under Article 230 EC by: (Case C-154/03)

(2003/C 124/24)
— considering that bringing proceedings on the basis
of the contested acts is comparable to bringing
proceedings under Article 226 EC;
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
— considering that the admitted lack of competence to Justice of the European Communities on 3 April 2003 by the
adopt the contested acts and the subsequent creation Commission of the European Communities, represented by
and exercise of such competence do not alter the Karen Banks, acting as agent, with an address for service in
legal position of the parties to the case; Luxembourg.