Case T-464/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — IMPALA v Commission (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market — Markets for recorded music and on-line music — Existence of a collective dominant position — Risk of creation of a collective dominant position — Conditions — Transparency of the market — Deterrence — Statement of reasons — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Internet, action for annulment (EU), distributive trades, dominant position, economic concentration, music, patents licence, restrictive-practice authorisation

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/39

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 –
Andrieu v Commission

Re:

(Case T-285/04) (1)

(Officials — Action for annulment — Career development
report — Rights of the defence — Action for damages —
Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 224/83)

Language of the case: French

Application for annulment of the decisions of the director of
Cedefop of 28 January 2004, appointing certain persons as
Heads of Area.

Operative part of the Judgment

(1) The decisions of the director of the European Centre for the Devel-
opment of Vocational Training (Cedefop) of 28 January 2004
appointing certain persons as Heads of Areas A to D are
annulled.

Parties

(2) Cedefop shall bear the costs

Applicant: Michel Andrieu (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by:
S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

(1) OJ C 284 of 20.11.2004.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Berscheid and L. Lozano Palacios, acting as
Agents, and M. Genton, lawyer)

Re:

Firstly, action for annulment of the applicant's career develop-
ment report for 2001/2002 and, secondly, action for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 July 2006 —
Fries Guggenheim v Cedefop

(Case T-373/04) (1)

(European Centre
of Vocational
Training — Posts of heads of area — Filling of posts by reas-
signment — No provision for a selection procedure)

the Development

for

(2006/C 224/84)

Language of the case: French

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 —
IMPALA v Commission

(Case T-464/04) (1)

(Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
declaring a concentration compatible with the common
market — Markets for recorded music and on-line music —
Existence of a collective dominant position — Risk of crea-
tion of a collective dominant position — Conditions —
Transparency of the market — Deterrence — Statement of
reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

(2006/C 224/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Independent Music Publishers and Labels Associa-
tion (Impala,
(Brussels, Belgium)
(represented by: S. Crosby and J. Golding, Solicitors, and I.
Wekstein-Steg, lawyer)

international association)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Whelan and K Mojzesowicz, Agents)

Interveners: Bertelsmann AG (Gütersloh, Germany) (represented
by: J. Boyce, Solicitor, P. Chappatte and D. Loukas, lawyers),
Sony BMG Music Entertainment BV (Vianen, Netherlands) and
Sony Corporation of America (SCA) (New York, United States)
(represented by: N. Levy, Barrister, R. Snelders and T. Graf,
lawyers)

Parties

Re:

Applicant: Éric Mathias
Greece) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Fries Guggenheim (Thessasoniki,

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational
Training (Cedefop) (represented by: B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 2815 of 19 July
2004 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the
common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement
(Case No COMP/M.3333 — Sony/BMG)

C 224/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2006

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2004) 2815 of 19 July 2004
declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common
market and the functioning of
the EEA Agreement (Case No
COMP/M.3333 — Sony/BMG);

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay three

quarters of those incurred by the applicant;

3. Orders the applicant to bear one quarter of its costs;

4. Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2005

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2006 —
Rossi v OHIM — Marcorossi (MARCOROSSI)

(Case T-97/05) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation for Community word mark MARCOROSSI — Earlier
national and international word marks MISS ROSSI —
Earlier Community word mark SERGIO ROSSI — Relative
ground of refusal — Likelihood of confusion)

(2006/C 224/86)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sergio Rossi SpA (San Mauro Pascoli, Italy) (repre-
sented by: A Ruo, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as
Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM
intervening before the Court of First Instance: Marcorossi Srl (Bodio
Lommago, Italy) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, M.
Boleto and E. Gavuzzi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of
Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2004 (Case R 226/2003-2)
concerning opposition proceedings between Sergio Rossi SpA
and Marcorossi Srl

3. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2006 —
Endesa v Commission

(Case T-417/05) (1)

(Competition — Concentration — Regulation (EC) No
139/2004 — Electricity market — Decision declaring that a
concentration has no Community dimension — Calculation
turnover — Accounting criteria — Adjustments —
of

Burden of proof — Rights of the defence)

(2006/C 224/87)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Endesa SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Flynn
QC, S. Baxter, Solicitor, and M. Odriozola Alén, M. Muñoz de
Juan, M. Merola, J. García de Enterría Lorenzo-Velázquez, J.
Varcárcel Martínez, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, É. Gippini Fournier, A.
Whelan and M. Schneider, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (repre-
sented by: N. Díaz Abad, abogado del Estado) and Gas Natural
SDG SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz, J.
Jiménez de la Iglesia and A. Leis García, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 15
November 2005 declaring that a concentration has no Com-
munity dimension (Case COMP/M.3986 — Gas Natural/Endesa)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and the costs of the
Commission and Gas Natural SDG SA, including those relating
to the interlocutory proceedings;

Operative part of the judgment

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the intervener

and to bear its own costs;

(1) OJ C 22 of 28.1.2006.