Case T-193/06: Action brought on 12 July 2006 — Télévision Française 1 v Commission
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, France, State aid, action for annulment (EU), audiovisual production, control of State aid, film production

C 224/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2006

Action brought on 7 July 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Burie Onderzoek en Advies B.V.

Action brought on 12 July 2006 — Télévision Française 1
v Commission

(Case T-179/06)

(2006/C 224/101)

Language of the case: Dutch

(Case T-193/06)

(2006/C 224/102)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Weimar, as Agent, assisted by W.A.M. Rupert,
lawyer)

Defendant: Burie Onderzoek en Advies B.V. (Nijeholtpade, Neth-
erlands)

Form of order sought

— Order the defendant to pay to the Commission the sum of
sum of
EUR 646 871,28,
namely
EUR 454 832,62 and EUR 192 039,66 default
interest,
plus interest at the statutory rate from the date of lodging
this application until the date on which the debt has been
paid in full;

principal

a

Parties

Applicant: Télévision Française 1 (Boulogne, France)
sented by: J.-P. Hordies and C. Smits, lawyers)

(repre-

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the applicant

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible and well founded;

— order the annulment of the decision given by the Commis-
sion on 22 March 2006 concerning aid schemes for the
film and audiovisual industry;

— make an appropriate order as to costs.

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the judicial and

extra-judicial proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Community, represented by the Commission,
concluded two contracts with the defendant and other contrac-
tors relating to activities carried out
in the framework of
research and development in the field of advanced communica-
in Europe (RACE II — project R2022
tion technologies
Barbara) and telematics applications of common interest (Tele-
promise program).

In accordance with the agreement, the Commission carried out
an audit. Following the results of that audit, the Commission
sent the defendant a debit note. The Commission submits that
it follows from the general conditions of the contracts that the
defendant is obliged to repay the difference between the agreed
costs and the payments already made by the Commission and
that this is a case of an undue payment under Article 203 of
Book 6 of the Netherlands Civil Code, which applies to the
contracts in question.

On 3 October 2001 the applicant lodged with the Commission
two complaints by which it applied for a finding that the
changes to the aid schemes in the field of support for the film
and audiovisual industry in France constituted illegal State aid,
in so far as they conferred, in breach of Article 88(3) EC, and
in any event, State aid incompatible with the common market.

By Decision C(2006)832 Final of 22 March 2006 (State Aid
NN 84/2004 and N 95/2004 — France, aid schemes for the
cinema and audiovisual industry), the Commission declared the
support schemes for cinematographic and audiovisual produc-
tion put in place in France to be compatible with the common
market under Article 87(3)(c) and (d) EC. That is the decision
contested in this action.

In support of its claims, the applicant relies on three pleas in
law.

the applicant maintains that

By its first plea in law,
the
Commission infringed essential procedural requirements in that
the contested decision is insufficiently reasoned in respect of
the nature of parafiscal charges, the nature of the investment
obligations imposed on televised broadcasters and the compat-
ibility with the common market of the other measures of State
support challenged by the applicant.

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/49

the applicant claims that

By its second plea in law,
the
Commission also made manifest errors of assessment of the
concept of State resources by deciding that
the system of
involve the transfer of State
compulsory orders does not
resources within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.

The third plea in law relied upon by the applicant alleges
breach by the Commission of Article 87(3)(d) EC in that the
contested decision contains a manifest error of assessment of
the meaning of ‘aid to promote culture’.

Action brought on 26 July 2006 — IBERDROLA v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-200/06)

(2006/C 224/103)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant:
J. Alfaro Aguilar and P. Liñán Hernández, lawyers)

IBERDROLA S.A.

(Bilbao, Spain)

(represented by:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision;

contrary to the Merger Regulation and the Community
case-law;

— failed to fulfil its obligation to ensure the coherent applica-
tion of the rules on the control of concentrations and the
abuse of a dominant position in examining the notified
transaction, authorising it without having examined the
origin of the funds which E.ON proposed to use for the
acquisition of ENDESA, in order to determine whether such
a concentration could be the result of an abuse of a domi-
nant position;

— made a series of manifest errors of assessment and ignored
certain relevant elements by concluding that the compat-
ibility of the transaction does not raise serious doubts and
adopting the decision authorising it in Phase 1. The appli-
cant emphasises
regard that, although it was
adopted on the basis of the new Merger Regulation, which
requires a more sophisticated and rigorous analysis, the
contested decision:

in that

— wholly ignores the negative impact which the transac-
tion will have on the process of the integration of the
national wholesale markets, which will culminate in the
completion of the single European market in gas and
electricity,

— did not sufficiently evaluate the impact of the proposed
transaction on the emergent pan-European market for
the supply of electricity to multinational undertakings,

— considers that,

in spite of its pan-European objective
and its economic strength, E.ON was not a significant
potential competitor of ENDESA in the Spanish markets
for electricity generation and the supply of gas,

— concludes that the transaction will not strengthen a
dominant position in the German market and that the
disappearance of a recent entrant, ENDESA, does not
alter the competitive context.

— Order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceed-

ings.

Finally the applicant claims that there has been a breach of the
duty to state the reasons on which measures are based.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the Decision of the Euro-
pean Commission of 25 April 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4110
— E.ON/ENDESA) declaring compatible with the common
market
the concentration whereby E.ON AG proposes to
acquire control of the whole of the shares in ENDESA SA.

The applicant claims in that regard that,
in its opinion, the
contested decision disregards the serious risks that coordinated
effects will be produced in the relations of competition
between the principal operators with a pan-European presence,
which must be examined in a transaction of this magnitude
and having these characteristics, that it affects the dominant
undertakings in two of the main national energy markets.

In support of its claims, the applicant maintains that the defen-
dant has:

— infringed the principle of sound administration by carrying
out a biased and inadequate investigation of the operation
of the affected markets and of the impact of the transaction
in those markets;

Action brought on 1 August 2006 — Gerson v OHIM
(Paint filter)

(Case T-201/06)

(2006/C 224/104)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Louis M. Gerson Co., Inc (Middleboro, USA) (repre-
sented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

— made an error of law by basing its examination of the
the national markets,

transaction on a consideration of

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)