Case T-347/02: Action brought on 22 November 2002 by Aunacable, S.A.Unipersonal, Retecal Sociedad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León, S.A., Euskaltel, S.A., Telecable de Avilés, S.A. Unipersonal, Telecable de Oviedo, S.A. Unipersonal, Telecable de Gĳón, S.A. Unipersonal, R Cable y Telecomunicaciones Galicia, S.A., and Tenaria S.A. against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-01-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for annulment (EU), cable distribution, economic concentration, jurisdiction, mass media, merger control, pay television

C 19/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.1.2003

The applicant finally submits that the defendant committed
serious procedural irregularities. More particularly, the defend-
ant did not respect the principle of good administration, the
right of parties to be heard and the duty to state reasons for its
decisions.

by Admira, by means of an exchange of shares. According to
the notification, following the successful completion of the
abovementioned operation, the resulting undertaking would
come under the joint control of Prisa and Groupe Canal+.

Action brought on 22 November 2002 by Cableuropa,
S.A., Región de Murcia de Cable, S.A., Valencia de Cable,
S.A., Mediterránea Sur Sistemas de Cable, S.A., y Mediter-
ránea Norte Sistemas de Cable, S.A. against Commission
of the European Communities

(Case T-346/02)

(2003/C 19/75)

In support of its arguments, the applicants allege:

— lack of competence of the Commission, in that it is not
empowered to refer a case to the authorities of a
Member State when the markets concerned affect intra-
Community trade and more than one Member State;

— infringement of Article 9 of the abovementioned regu-
lation on concentrations in that the contested decision
makes a ‘blank’ reference to the national authorities;

— failure to observe the obligation to provide reasons,
specifically as regards the exceptional nature of the
reference in cases in which the markets in question affect
a substantial part of the common market.

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 November 2002 by Cableuropa,
S.A. (having its registered office in Aravaca, Madrid), Región
de Murcia de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in Murcia,
Spain), Valencia de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in
Madrid), Mediterránea sur Sistemas de Cable, S.A. (having its
registered office in Alicante, Spain) y Mediterránea Norte
Sistemas de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in Castellón,
Spain), represented by Luis Felipe Castresana Sánchez and
Gonzalo Samaniego Bordiu, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2002
referring Case COMP/M.2845 - Sogecable/Canalsatélite
Digital/Vía Digital to the competent authorities in the
Kingdom of Spain pursuant
to Article 9 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89;

— order the parties to bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested by the present application concerns the
notification, pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of
concentrations between undertakings (1), of a planned concen-
tration by which Sogecable SA, controlled by Promotora de
Informaciones S.A (Prisa) and Groupe Canal +S.A., the latter
belonging to the Vivendi Universal group, signs an agreement
with the Admira Media S.A. group, belonging to the Telefónica
S.A group, with the aim of merging Sogecable and DTS
Distribuidora de Televisión Digital S.A. (Vía Digital), controlled

Action brought on 22 November 2002 by Aunacable,
S.A.Unipersonal, Retecal Sociedad Operadora de Teleco-
municaciones de Castilla y León, S.A., Euskaltel, S.A.,
Telecable de Avilés, S.A. Unipersonal, Telecable de Ovie-
do, S.A. Unipersonal, Telecable de Gijón, S.A. Uniper-
sonal, R Cable y Telecomunicaciones Galicia, S.A., and
Tenaria S.A. against Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-347/02)

(2003/C 19/76)

(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 22 November 2002 by Aunacable,
S.A.Unipersonal (having its registered office in Madrid), Retecal
Sociedad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León,
S.A. (having its registered office in Boecilli, Valladolid, Spain),
Euskaltel, S.A.(having its registered office in Zamudio-Bizkaia),
Telecable de Avilés, S.A. Unipersonal (registered in Avilés),
Telecable de Oviedo, S.A. Unipersonal (having its registered
office in Oviedo), Telecable de Gijón, S.A. Unipersonal (having
its registered office in Gijón), R Cable y Telecomunicaciones
Galicia, S.A.(having its registered office in A Coruña, Spain)
and Tenaria S.A.(having its registered office in Cordovilla,
Navarra, Spain), represented by Antonio Creus Carreras,
Natalia Lacalle Mangas and José Mª Jiménez Laiglesia, lawyers.

25.1.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 19/41

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— annul the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2002
referring Case COMP/M.2845 - Sogecable/Canalsatélite
Digital/Vía Digital to the competent authorities in the
Kingdom of Spain pursuant
to Article 9 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are essentially those
previously put forward in Case T-346/02 CABLEUROPA and
Others v Commission.

The applicants allege, in particular, breach of the principle of
good administration, inasmuch as the Commission not only
abandoned a practice and a consolidated policy in decisions to
refer cases to the market affected by the operation in question,
it also failed to take into account a case which is closely linked
to the concentration operation and involving the same parties.
In any event, the Commission is better placed than the national
authorities to analyse the abovementioned operation for,
among other reasons, the overriding questions of Community
interest which the later raises.

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

The Community trade
mark concerned:

Proprietor of the right to
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

sign
Trade mark or
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

INTER SERVICE S.r.l.

SEPHORA (registration
appli-
cation No 593.806 for goods in
Classes 9, 18 and 25

The applicant

French word mark SEPHORA for
goods in Classes 35 and 42

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Appeal rejected

Grounds of claim:

Misapplication of Article 8(4) of
Regulation No 40/94

Action brought on 22 November 2002 by the company
Sephora against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

Action brought on 26 November 2002 by Ikegami Elec-
tronics (Europe) GmbH against the Council of the Euro-
pean Union

(Case T-349/02)

(2003/C 19/77)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-350/02)

(2003/C 19/78)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
22 November 2002 by Sephora, whose registered office is in
Levallois-Perret (France), represented by Michel-Paul Escande,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade
marks and designs) of 9 September 2002 (Case R 425/
2000-2);

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 26 November 2002 by Ikegami Electronics
(Europe) GmbH, Neuss, Germany, represented by Mr Laurent
Ruessmann, lawyer with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1696/

2002;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— order the Council to pay the costs.