1. Only the first category of access is governed by Regulation No 1049/2001 and applies erga omnes.

2. Again, where the appellant seeks, in addition to the annulment of the first-instance judgment, an adjudication by the Court on the merits of the case and a declaration that the Polypropylene decision is invalid, on grounds connected with its formal or substantive legality, annulment of that act does not operate erga omnes but only in favour of the appellant.

3. There is always the option of the ‘summary judgment’ – aimed at speeding up the task of the court responsible for making the decision with concise grounds and referrals per relationem – which must be limited, as appropriate, for decisions that the Community trade mark and design courts are called upon to make in counterclaims for a declaration of invalidity or revocation of the corresponding rights involved in national infringement proceedings (Article 92 of Regulation 40/94 and Article 81 of Regulation 6/2002): decisions intended to have ‘erga omnes’ effect throughout the territory of the European Union for which excessive conciseness could be counterproductive to a universal accurate comprehension of the ‘abolitionary’ scope of the decision.