Case T-354/00: Action brought on 23 November 2000 by Métropole Télévision (M6) against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-03-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Broadcasting Union, European Commission, France, action for annulment (EU), competition law, television

C 79/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.3.2001

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Action brought on 23 November 2000 by Métropole
Télévision (M6) against Commission of the European
Communities

— The existence, in the present case, of a manifest error of

assessment, inasmuch as:

(Case T-354/00)

(2001/C 79/39)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 November 2000 by Métropole
Télévision (M6), established in Neuilly-sur-Seine (France), rep-
resented by Didier Téophile, of the Paris Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission of
12 September 2000 in Case COMP/C2/37.825 (M6) v
European Broadcasting Union (EBU);

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant company observes that, on 13 July 2000 it
brought an action against the exemption decision of the
Commission of 10 May 2000 by which it declared the
provisions of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty inapplicable for
the period 26 February 1993 to 31 December 2005 to certain
EBU agreements. That decision is in line with the judgment of
the Court of First Instance of 11 July 1996 (1) and the new
rules which the EBU subsequently adopted, supplementing
and amending its Statutes. In that regard, the applicant claims
to find itself in a situation in which, pending the next judgment
of the Court of First Instance, the EBU is benefiting from a
situation in which the Commission expressly states that the
new membership conditions do not result in a restriction of
competition. That is why M6 was forced to lodge a complaint
on 6 March 2000, the rejection of which is now the subject-
matter of the present action, seeking a declaration from the
Commission prohibiting the new EBU membership conditions
and the rules supplementing them.

In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges:

— Breach of essential procedural requirements in that the
Commission disregarded the procedural rules introduced
by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2842/98 of 22 De-
cember 1998 on the hearing of parties in certain proceed-
ings under Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty, (2) by
sending M6, in reply to its complaint of 6 March 2000, a
definitive rejection, without giving it the opportunity
beforehand of making known its views.

— the current circumstances have changed from those
prevailing in December 1997. Such a change
involves,
in particular, the adoption on 3 April
1998, of new membership conditions as well as of
new rules fixing the criteria for the interpretation of
Article 3(3) of the EBU Statutes;

— the complaint of 6 March 2000 does not reproduce
the terms or arguments of the first complaint of 5
December 1997, the rejection of which formed
the subject-matter of Case T-206/99 Métropole
Télévision v Commission (3).

(1) Joined Cases T-528/93, T-542/93, T-543/93, T-543/93,
T-546/93, T-546/93 Métropole Télévision and Others v Com-
mission [1996] ECR II-649.

(2) OJ 1998 L 354, p. 18.
(3) OJ 1999 C 333, p. 33.

Action brought on 6 December 2000 by N.V. Master
Foods against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-370/00)

(2001/C 79/40)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 December 2000 by N.V. Master
Foods, a company incorporated under Belgian law, represented
by Laurent Ruessmann and Ivo Onkelinx of De Bandt, Van
Hecke, Lagae & Loesch, Brussels (Belgium).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission Decision set out in the DG Budget
letter of 29 September 2000, as regards the determination
of the import prices and resulting amount of definitive
duties due by the applicant under the CRS; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.