Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:247
Date: 2002-10-15
Language of the case: Danish
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Culture
Concepts: Culture
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Denmark

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Culture — Community programmes — MEDIA II programme — Applications for 
funding for film distribution — Conditions for eligibility — Guidelines drawn up by 
the Commission — Binding effect on the Commission 
(Council Decision 95/563) 
2. Culture — Community programmes — MEDIA II programme — Applications for 
funding for film distribution — Conditions for eligibility — Criterion of acquisition 
of distribution rights — Criterion of responsibility for distribution costs — Criterion 
of direct distribution — Criterion relating to negotiation of release dates — Scope 
(Council Decision 95/563) 
II - 3937 
SUMMARY — CASE T-233/00 
1. In accordance with the principles of 
legal certainty and sound adminis­
tration, the Commission is bound to 
respect the criteria that it has itself set 
out in the guidelines contained in its 
Call for Proposals 8/2000, entitled 
'Support for the Transnational Dis­
tribution of European Films and the 
Networking of European Distribu­
tors — "The Automatic Scheme'" 
implementing the subsidy system pro­
vided for by the programme encour­
aging the development and distribution 
of European audiovisual works 
(MEDIA II), and cannot declare a 
company which does not satisfy those 
criteria eligible for the automatic 
scheme. 
(see para. 30) 
2. Only the distribution companies which 
satisfy the cumulative criteria set out in 
paragraph 2.4 of the guidelines con­
tained in the Commission's Call for 
Proposals 8/2000, entitled 'Support for 
the Transnational Distribution of 
European Films and the Networking 
of European Distributors — "The 
Automatic Scheme'" implementing the 
programme encouraging the develop­
ment and distribution of European 
audiovisual works (MEDIA II), are 
eligible for the automatic scheme. 
Those criteria for eligibility are satis­
fied by a production and distribution 
company, even if it has concluded a 
subcontract with a production and 
distribution company in another 
Member State under which the latter 
undertakes to distribute the film in that 
other Member State, where: first, it is 
the sole holder of the exclusive rights to 
distribute those films in that State; 
second, it bears sole responsibility for 
the distribution costs, the subcontrac­
tor deducting the costs arising from 
distribution of the films from the film 
rental payments and the distributor 
reimbursing those advanced by the 
subcontractor; third, it distributes the 
films directly, the subcontractor being 
merely the 'physical distributor' and 
therefore, under paragraph 2.4, unable 
to be regarded as a 'distributor'; fourth, 
it negotiates the date of the films' 
release, for example by approving a 
marketing plan drawn up by the sub­
contractor which contains information 
on the release date, as paragraph 2.4 
does not require that the release date be 
determined directly or exclusively by 
the distributor and it is sufficient that it 
has been negotiated by the distributor. 
(see paras 26, 38, 51, 54-55, 66-67) 
II - 3938