Case T-385/07: Action brought on 4 October 2007 — FIFA v Commission
Date: 2007-10-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), broadcasting, exclusive distribution agreement, freedom to provide services, sporting event, television

22.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/41

Action brought on 4 October 2007 — FIFA v Commission

(Case T-385/07)

(2007/C 315/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fédération Internationale de Football Association
(FIFA) (represented by: R. Denton, E. Batchelor and F. Young,
Solicitors)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— The annulment of the decision,

in particular Articles 1-2

thereof; and

— an order that the Commission pay its own costs and FIFA's

costs in connection with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 3a of Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1) a Member
State may draw up a list of sporting or other events that are
considered to be events of ‘major importance to society’. The
events on the list cannot be the subject of exclusive broadcasting
rights which prevent a substantial proportion of the public in
that Member State from watching the event via live coverage or
deferred coverage on free television.

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision
2007/479/EC of 25 June 2007 (2) by which the Commission
to
declared that
Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC was compatible
with Community law.

the list drawn up by Belgium pursuant

restricts

its application the applicant submits that the
In support of
the freedom to provide services by
Belgian list
preventing the applicant
from licensing foreign broadcasters
with live exclusive FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights in
respect of the Belgian market and that the listing of all FIFA
is not justified,
World Cup matches, regardless of popularity,
proportionate or necessary.

Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the Belgian list restricts
freedom of establishment by preventing the applicant
from
licensing new entrants who wish to use premium sports broad-
casting to establish themselves on the Belgian market.

Moreover, the applicant contends that the Belgian list infringes
the applicant's property rights by depriving it of exclusivity in
respect of its broadcasting rights, recognised according to the
applicant by EC law to be the essence of intellectual property
protection.

Finally, the applicant argues that contrary to Article 3a(1) of
Council Directive 89/552/EEC the Belgian list was not drawn up
in a clear and transparent manner.

(1) Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordina-
tion of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Adminis-
trative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television
broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23).

(2) Commission Decision 2007/479/EC of 25 June 2007 on the
compatibility with Community law of measures taken by Belgium
pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the
coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or
administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of
television broadcasting activities (OJ 2007 L 180, p. 24).

Action brought on 15 October 2007 — Alber v OHIM
(part of hand grip)

(Case T-391/07)

(2007/C 315/78)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Alfons Alber
Schneller, lawyer)

(Vöran,

Italy)

(represented by: S.

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

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 August 2007
and the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market of 16 January 2007 in so far as those deci-
sions
trade mark
registration of Community
No 4 396 727 in respect of the goods ‘manually operated
tools for agricultural, horticultural and forestry activities,
including garden shears, tree pruning shears, hedge clippers;
manually operated secateurs …’;

reject

— hold oral proceedings before the Court of First Instance;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

— in the alternative, remit the case to the Office for Harmoni-

sation in the Internal Market;