45In particular, the Commission takes the view that the case-law of the Court of Justice, stemming inter alia from the judgments of 23 November 1999, Portugal v Council (C‑149/96, EU:C:1999:574, paragraph 49), and of 16 July 2015, Commission v Rusal Armenal (C‑21/14 P, EU:C:2015:494, paragraphs 40 and 41), which recognises, by way of exception, the direct applicability of certain provisions of the Agreement establishing the WTO and of the agreements in Annexes 1 to 4 to the latter (‘the WTO Agreements’), does not apply in the present case. Since Article 41(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 does not contain any deliberate reference to a specific provision of the Paris Convention, that provision does not make it possible to infer any intention on the part of the EU legislature to give direct effect to Article 4 of that convention. This may also be inferred, it is argued, from a comparison between that provision and Article 25(1)(g) of that regulation which, by contrast, in making a concrete and explicit reference to Article 6ter of that convention, demonstrates such an intention.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.