Case T-33/01: Action brought on 12 February 2001 by Kirch Media GmbH & Co KgaA and Kirchmedia WM AG against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-05-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, United Kingdom, action for annulment (EU), audiovisual industry, exclusive distribution agreement, sporting event

C 134/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.5.2001

Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Carmine Salvatore
Tralli against the European Central Bank

The applicants claim that the Court should:

(Case T-27/01)

(2001/C 134/53)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 5 February 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli, of Nidderau
(Germany), represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and
Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsanwälte, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

— annul, in whole or in part, the Commission’s decision
under Article 3(a) of Directive 89/552/EEC (as amended)
that measures taken by the United Kingdom to ensure
that broadcasters within its jurisdiction do not broadcast
events of major importance for society on an exclusive
basis are compatible with Community law, and communi-
cating the UK measures to the other Member States so as
to oblige them to ensure that broadcasters within their
respective jurisdictions comply with the UK measures;

— declare under Article 241 EC that Article 3(a) TWF
Directive, in whole or in part, is inapplicable and cannot
serve as a basis for the Commission’s decision; and

— order the Commission to pay all

the costs of

the

The applicant claims that the Court should:

proceedings.

(1)

annul the defendant’s decision, contained in a document
dated 29 January 2001, rejecting the applicant’s com-
plaint;

(2)

annul the unilateral extension of the applicant’s pro-
bationary period;

(3) order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
advanced in Case T-373/00 Tralli v ECB (not yet published).

Action brought on 12 February 2001 by Kirch Media
GmbH & Co KgaA and Kirchmedia WM AG against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-33/01)

(2001/C 134/54)

(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 12 February 2001 by Kirch Media
GmbH & Co KgaA, a company incorporated under Germany
law and Kirchmedia WM AG, a company incorporated under
Swiss law, represented by Professor Carl Otto Lenz, Andreas
Bardong and Edward William Batchelor, of Baker & McKenzie,
London (UK).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application requests the annulment of the decision
of the Commission of or around 18 November 2000 under
Article 3(a) of Directive 89/552, of 3 October 1989, on the
coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation
or administrative Action in Member States concerning the
pursuit of television broadcasting activities (1) (the Directive).
In that decision the Commission found compatible with
Community Law United Kingdom (UK) measures prohibiting
broadcasters from broadcasting certain listed sporting events
in a way that deprived a substantial proportion of the UK from
viewing them and communicated the UK measures to the
other Member States in order to ensure that broadcasters
within their respective jurisdictions comply with the UK
measures.

In support of their claims, the applicants submit that the
decision infringes:

— the principle of proportionality,

— the applicants’ right to property by fundamentally affect-
ing its ability to dispose of its World Cup rights, thereby
affecting their value,

— the applicants’ freedom to carry on an economic activity
by affecting their ability to undertake their business in
the managing, marketing and sale of the World Cup
rights,

— the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
and the principle of non-retroactivity by applying
measures to rights which the applicants purchased before
the entry into force of the UK measures or Article 3(a) of
the Directive,

5.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134/25

— the principle of equality by applying measures to the
applicants
justification,
between holders of rights who are broadcasters and
holders who are not,

discriminate, without

that

— Article 3(a)2 of the Directive

— by concluding that the UK measures are compatible
with Community law as regards the procedures
adopted by the UK in drawing up and consulting on
the UK measures.

— by concluding that the UK measures are compatible
with Community law, in that the measures infringe
general principles of Community Law, Articles 43
and 48 EC, the principle of free competition within
the internal market, discrimination on grounds of
nationality and infringement of the right to freedom
of expression,

— by excluding from its assessment of the UK measures
the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1996 (sec-
tions 99 and 100) relating to the prohibition of
exclusivity and of mandatory licensing provisions.

The applicants further submit that Article 3(a) of the Directive
is inapplicable under Article 241 EC as was introduced by
means of an unlawful legislative procedure and has no legal
basis.

Finally, the applicants submit that, in adopting the contested
decision, the Commission infringed essential procedural safe-
guards by failing to adopt it in accordance with its internal
rules of procedure and by failing in its duty to state reasons
under Article 253 EC.

(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23.

Action brought on 23 February 2001 by Rafael Pérez
Escolar against Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-41/01)

(2001/C 134/55)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 February 2001 by Rafael Pérez
Escolar, residing in Madrid, represented by Fernando Moreno
Pardo.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that

the Commission has failed to fulfil

its
obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt any
decision whatever regarding the complaint made by the
applicant on 23 February 1999, relating to the State aid
granted by the Spanish authorities to Banco Espan˜ ol de
Crédito SA; and

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant states that, on 23 February 1999, he lodged a
complaint with the Competition Commissioner, claiming that
a number of financial measures had been adopted by the
Spanish authorities in favour of Banco Espan˜ ol de Crédito and
Banco de Santander, which in his view amounted to State aid.
Such aid, despite having been granted in 1994, was not fully
analysed by the Commission at the time.

That complaint was followed by the submission of a number
of documents and even a meeting between the applicant and
the relevant Commission services. Despite all the information
and documents provide by the applicant
in relation to
the measures complained of, those services took no action
whatsoever vis-à-vis the Spanish authorities. On 6 November
2000, the applicant, taking the view that, despite the com-
plexity of the case, the Commission had had more than a
reasonable period in which to adopt a position with regard to
the complaint made more than two years previously, lodged a
document formally requesting that a decision be adopted by
the Commission. Since that request, the period prescribed by
Article 232 EC has more than expired without the Commission
having defined its position.

The applicant claims that the Commission was under an
obligation to adopt a decision on the complaint either
declaring that the measures complained of do not constitute
State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC or that they
must be characterised as such but are compatible with the
common market, or by initiating the formal
investigation
procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC. The applicant
takes the view, accordingly, that the Commission has failed to
fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty.