Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 September 2001 in Case T-112/99 Métropole télévision (M6) and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Actions for annulment — Competition — Pay television — Joint venture — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Article 85(1) of the Treaty — Negative clearance — Ancillary restrictions — Rule of reason — Article 85(3) of the Treaty — Exemption decision — Duration)
Date: 2002-02-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), exclusive distribution agreement, restriction on competition, television

16.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 44/11

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 22 November 2001

of 18 September 2001

in Case T-139/98: Amministrazione Autonoma dei Mono-
poli di Stato (AAMS) v Commission of the European
Communities (1)

in Case T-112/99 Métropole télévision (M6) and Others v
Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Competition — Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82
EC) — Abuse of a dominant position — Italian cigarette
sector — Distribution agreement — Abusive contract terms
— Abusive conduct — Reduction of fine)

(Actions for annulment — Competition — Pay television —
Joint venture — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81
EC) — Article 85(1) of the Treaty — Negative clearance —
Ancillary restrictions — Rule of reason — Article 85(3) of
the Treaty — Exemption decision — Duration)

(2002/C 44/18)

(2002/C 44/19)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-139/98: Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli
di Stato (AAMS), represented by P.G. Ferri and D. Del Gaizo,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Mar-
enco and L. Pignataro) supported by Rothmans International
Europe BV, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands), represent-
ed by S. Crosby, solicitor, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, and JT International BV, formerly R.J. Reynolds
International BV, established in Hilversum (Netherlands), rep-
resented by O.W. Brouwer, J.-N. Louis and T. Janssens, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg — application for
annulment of Commission Decision 98/538/EC of 17 June
1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 86 of the EC
Treaty (IV/36.010-F3 — Amministrazione Autonoma dei
in the
Monopoli di Stato)
alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed — the Court of
First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President,
R. Garcı´a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke,
Judges; E. Sheehan,
Legal Secretary, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
22 November 2001, in which it:

(OJ 1998 L 252, p. 47) and,

In Case T-112/99 Métropole télévision (M6), established in
Neuilly sur Seine (France), Suez-Lyonnaise des eaux, established
in Nanterre (France), France Télécom, established in Paris
(France), represented by D. Théophile, lawyer, with an address
for service in Luxembourg, and Télévision française 1 SA
(TF1), established in Paris, represented by P. Dunaud and
P. Elsen, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
E. Gippini Fournier and K. Wiedner), supported by CanalSatel-
lite, established in Paris, represented by L. Cohen-Tanugi and
F. Brunet, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg
— application for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Com-
mission Decision 1999/242/EC of 3 March 1999 relating to a
proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/36.237
— TPS) (OJ 1999 L 90, p. 6) — the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts
and M. Jaeger, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 September 2001, in
which it:

1. Dismisses the action;

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders AAMS to pay the costs of the Commission and of the

interveners and to bear its own costs.

2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those

incurred by the Commission and by the intervener.

(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.

(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.