Case T-297/01: Action brought on 6 December 2001 by SIC — Sociedade Independente de Comunicação S.A. against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, action for failure to act, competition law, firm governed by commercial law, television

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/59

Action brought on 6 December 2001 by SIC — Sociedade
Independente de Comunicaça˜o S.A. against Commission
of the European Communities

(Case T-297/01)

(2002/C 84/110)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

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 2001 by SIC —
Sociedade Independente de Comunicaça˜o S.A., whose regis-
tered office is at Carnaxide, Linda-a-Velha (Portugal), represent-
ed by Carlos Botelho Moniz, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— find the action admissible;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs.

In view of the inactivity of the Community institution, the
applicant, in accordance with Article 232 of the EC Treaty, in
August 1995 requested the Commission to adopt a position
on the complaint, in particular with regard to the request that
it initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission requested additional
Portuguese authorities.

information of

the

Disappointed with that request, which it considered to be
merely interlocutory in nature, and in view of the Com-
mission’s failure to act, SIC brought an action for failure to act
under Article 232 of the EC Treaty (Case T-231/95).

Following the adoption by the Commission of the decision of
7 November 1996 on the financing from public funds granted
to RTP, the action for failure to act was emptied of purpose
and the applicant abandoned the action.

Meanwhile, on 22 October 1996 SIC lodged a fresh complaint
with the Commission against the Portuguese Republic claiming
infringement of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty in respect
of the manner in which the concession for public service
television was granted.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The second complaint was, in essence, based on the same legal
grounds as the first.

The applicant is a commercial company whose sole object is
the pursuit of television broadcasting activities.

lodged with Directorate
On 30 July 1993, the applicant
General for Competition — DG IV of the Commission —
a complaint against the Portuguese Republic and RTP —
Radiotelevisa˜o Portuguesa, alleging breach of Community
rules on competition, in particular of Articles 87 and 88 of the
EC Treaty.

On 6 October 1997 the applicant received a copy of the
abovementioned decision of the Commission of 7 November
1996 addressed to the Portuguese Republic concerning the
financing of public television channels in which the Com-
mission took the view that the measures referred to did not
amount to State aid granted by the Portuguese State to RTP
and were therefore not covered by the Treaty State aid rules.

By application of 3 March 1997 SIC brought an action for
annulment of that decision (Case T-46/97).

The complaint concerned a number of measures adopted by
the Portuguese Government in favour of RTP, a public operator
holding the public service television concession, taking the
view that such measure constituted State aid within the
meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty and that such aid had
been granted contrary to Article 88(3) of the Treaty.

In the judgment delivered on 10 May 2000, the Court of First
Instance held that the Commission was under a duty to initiate
the procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect
of a number of financial measures adopted by the Portuguese
State vis-à-vis RTP.

More than 2 years after the complaint was lodged, and despite
various approaches by SIC, SIC found that the Commission
had failed to adopt a position on the complaint.

By letter of 3 January 2001, SIC asked the Commission what
measures it intended to adopt in order to comply with the
judgment.

C 84/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.2002

In the absence of any reply from the Commission,
the
applicant, by letter of 26 July 2001, called upon it to take
action in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 232.

complaints of 22 October 1996 and 20 June 1997 lodged
by the applicant;

3.

order the Commission to pay all the costs.

After the expiry of the period of two months prescribed by the
Treaty, the Commission had not initiated the procedure nor
responded to the call to take action.

In early November 2001, after the abovementioned two-
month period had expired, the applicant received a letter from
the Commission informing it that the internal preparatory
work for compliance with the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of May 2000 was almost complete.

The applicant takes the view that that letter is a merely
provisional step which does not define the position of the
defendant institution.

Action brought on 6 December 2001 by SIC — Sociedade
Independente de Comunicaça˜o S.A. against Commission
of the European Communities

(Case T-298/01)

(2002/C 84/111)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

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 2001 by SIC —
Sociedade Independente de Comunicaça˜o S.A., whose regis-
tered office is at Carnaxide, Linda-a-Velha (Portugal), represent-
ed by Carlos Botelho Moniz, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

2.

find the action admissible;

accordingly,
in view of the duty incumbent on the
Commission under Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty as
regards the preliminary assessment of State aid measures
brought to its attention, as well as of the general principles
of law to which it is subject, in particular the principles
of legality, good administration and care, declare that the
Commission failed, contrary to Articles 87 and 88 of the
Treaty and the abovementioned general principles of law,
in its duty to adopt a decision regarding the request for
the procedure under Article 88(2) to be initiated in
respect of the measures which were the subject of the

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a commercial company whose sole object is
the pursuit of television broadcasting activities.

On 22 October 1996, the applicant lodged with Directorate
General for Competition — DG IV of the Commission —
a complaint against the Portuguese Republic and RTP —
Radiotelevisa˜o Portuguesa, alleging breach of Community rules
on competition, in particular of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC
Treaty.

The complaint concerned a number of measures adopted by
the Portuguese Government in favour of RTP, a public operator
holding the public service television concession, taking the
view that such measure constituted State aid within the
meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty and that such aid had
been granted contrary to Article 88(3) of the Treaty.

The complaint related, in particular, to compensatory pay-
ments made in 1994, 1995 and 1996 by the Portuguese
Republic to RTP.

The payments for 1994 and 1995 were the subject of a
Commission decision of 7 November 1996, against which an
action for annulment was brought.

The failure to act which constitutes the subject-matter of the
present action relates to the compensatory payment for 1996.

Such a measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of
Article 87 of the EC Treaty, since it was implemented by the
Portuguese State contrary to Article 88(3) without previously
notifying the Commission.

The measure was brought to the attention of the Commission
by means of the complaint of 22 October 1996, that is to say,
more than 5 years ago, no decision having been taken by that
Community institution with regard to the 1996 compensatory
payment until the end of November 2001.

On 20 June 1997 the applicant lodged with Directorate
General for Competition — DG IV of the Commission — a
fresh complaint against the Portuguese Republic and RTP
alleging breach of Community rules on competition,
in
particular of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty.