Case C-52/01: Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Commission of the European Communities against TV Internazionale SpA
Date: 2001-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, appeal to an administrative authority, audiovisual programme, programmes industry, termination of a contract, use of aid

21.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/11

Is Article 3a(1)(e) of the directive to be interpreted as
meaning that the information on the identification of the
competitor must be restricted to the extent absolutely
necessary and it is therefore not permitted if, in addition
to the competitor’s name, its company logo (if it exists)
and its shop are shown?

(1) OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18.
(2) OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17.

Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-47/01)

(2001/C 118/16)

Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Commission of
the European Communities against Beta Television SpA
(Videomusic/TMC2)

(Case C-51/01)

(2001/C 118/17)

An action against Beta Television SpA (Videomusic/TMC2)
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 5 February 2001 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Bernard Mongin,
assisted by Massimo Moretto, avvocato.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to repay, to the Commission, EUR
382 312, together with interest as from 14 July 1999
until actual payment;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 Febru-
ary 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Go´ mez de la
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.

The action, brought on the basis of an arbitration clause, seeks
the repayment of sums of money advanced in the context of
Contract No 70320, signed on 13 November 1996, in the
context of the 16:9 Action Plan to promote the broadcast of
high-definition television programmes in Europe.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to draw up or,

in any event,
communicate to the Commission, the plan, outline or
inventory summary required by Articles 4(1) and 11 of
Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of 16 September 1996 on
the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlori-
nated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on are set out in
the application.

(1) OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31.

The beneficiary, within the period laid down in the contract,
broadcast only 6 hours and 34 minutes of programmes in
16:9 format instead of the 500 hours offered and contracted
for. The Commission therefore decided to terminate the
contract, governed by Belgian law, for breach of contract by
the defendant.

Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Commission of
the European Communities against TV Internazionale
SpA

(Case C-52/01)

(2001/C 118/18)

An action against TV Internazionale SpA was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 Febru-
ary 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Bernard Mongin, assisted by Massimo Moretto,
avvocato.

C 118/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.4.2001

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to repay, to the Commission, EUR
263 656 together with interest as from 14 July 1999
until actual payment;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

b)

if the answer to question (a) is yes, from what date
and on what basis should such interest be calculated?

2. On the proper interpretation of Article 1(4) of the Second
Motor Insurance Directive, in circumstances where the
compensating body itself has an obligation to investigate
the victim’s injury and loss (and to incur the costs thereof,
including the cost of medical and other reports):

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action, brought on the basis of an arbitration clause, seeks
the repayment of sums of money advanced in the context of
Contract No 70317, signed on 13 November 1996, in the
context of the 16:9 Action Plan to promote the broadcast of
high-definition television programmes in Europe.

The beneficiary, within the period laid down in the contract,
broadcast only 43 hours and 20 minutes of programmes in
16:9 format instead of the 500 hours offered and contracted
for. The Commission therefore decided to terminate the
contract, governed by Belgian law, for breach of contract by
the defendant.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, by
in the case of
order of that court of 17 May 2000,
Samuel Sidney Evans against 1) Secretary of State for the
Environment, Transport and the Regions and 2) Motor
Insurers’ Bureau

(Case C-63/01)

(2001/C 118/19)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, of 17 May
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 13 February
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Samuel Sidney
Evans against 1) Secretary of State for the Environment,
Transport and the Regions and 2) Motor Insurers’ Bureau, on
the following questions:

1. On the proper

interpretation of Council Directive
84/5/EEC (1) of 30th December 1983 on the approxi-
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to
insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of
motor vehicles (‘the Second Motor Insurance Directive’):

a) must the arrangements concerning the provision of
compensation by the body established or authorised
pursuant to Article 1(4) include provision for the
payment of interest on the sums found to be payable
for the damage to property or personal injuries?

a) must the arrangements concerning the provision of
compensation by the body include provision for the
payment of
the costs incurred by a victim in
preparing and making his application to that body
for compensation?

b)

if the answer to question (a) is yes, on what basis are
those costs to be calculated in a case where that
body has made an offer to the victim in excess of
the amount that he finally recovers, which offer the
victim declined to accept?

3. On the proper interpretation of Article 1(4) of the Second
Motor Insurance Directive, if the victim’s application for
compensation is determined by a body that is not a
court, must he have a full right to appeal against that
determination to a court, on both the facts and the law,
rather than an appeal to an independent arbitrator having
the following principal characteristics:

i)

the victim may appeal to the arbitrator on both the
facts and the law;

ii) when giving notice of appeal, the victim may make
further representations and adduce further evidence
to the compensating body upon which the compen-
sating body may alter its award prior to the appeal;

iii)

iv)

v)

the victim is provided in advance with a copy of all
the material to be provided to the arbitrator and is
given the opportunity to add any material that he
wishes in response;

the arbitrator makes an award, without an oral
hearing, in which he or she decides what award the
compensating body ought to make and gives reasons
for that decision;

if the victim is dissatisfied, he is entitled to appeal
from the arbitrator to the Courts but he may do so
only on the grounds of serious irregularity affecting
the arbitration or on a question of law (including
whether there was any evidence to support any
particular conclusion of the arbitrator or whether
any particular conclusion was one to which no
arbitrator could reasonably come upon the evi-
dence), and in the case of an appeal on a question of
law, permission to appeal must be obtained from
the Court which will not be given unless the decision
of the arbitrator is obviously wrong and it is just
and proper in all the circumstances for the Court to
determine the question.