Case T-414/08: Action brought on 29 September 2008 — AKKA/LAA v Commission
Date: 2008-09-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Latvia, action for annulment (EU), copyright, intellectual property

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/39

Action brought on 30 September 2008 — GEMA v
Commission

Secondly, the applicant pleads that the Commission committed
a substantial procedural error since it gave inadequate reasons
for its decision contrary to its obligation under Article 253 EC.

(Case T-410/08)

(2008/C 313/70)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Gesellschaft
fur musikalische Auffführungs- und
mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (GEMA) (Berlin, Germany)
(represented by: R. Bechtold and I. Brinker, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— declare Article 3, Article 4(2) and, in so far as it refers to
Article 3, Article 4(3) of the decision of the Commission of
16 July 2008 void under Article 231(1) EC, in so far as the
applicant is concerned by it;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs under

Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The application concerns the decision of the Commission of
16 July 2008 in Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC, in which the
Commission declared that concerted practices in connection
with the mutual exchange of musical copyright between socie-
ties of authors and composers belonging to the International
Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC)
were incompatible with Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the
complaint
EEA Agreement. The
concerning a concerted practice in Article 3 and the obligations
arising from Article 4(2) and (3) of the decision in that regard
to bring the infringement to an end.

challenges

applicant

the

Thirdly, the decision is based on a manifest error of law and
assessment, since the Commission concluded that there was a
concerted practice from the structure of the market alone and
therefore unlawfully reversed the distribution of the burden of
proof laid down by law to the detriment of the applicant.

Fourthly, the Commission assumed incorrectly in law that there
was an infringement of Article 81 EC, since it failed to under-
stand that the grant of rights restricted to the national territory
in the reciprocal contracts concluded between the members of
CISAC in accordance with the CISAC standard contract is an
essential and necessary element of the international collective
protection of rights and an expression of the generally recog-
nised principle of territoriality in copyright law and therefore is
not a restriction of competition within the meaning of
Article 81 EC.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the
implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81
and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1 of 4.1.2003, p. 1).

Action brought on 29 September 2008 — AKKA/LAA v
Commission

(Case T-414/08)

(2008/C 313/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Autortiesību un komunicēšanās konsultāciju aģentūra/
Latvijas Autoru apvienība (AKKA/LAA)
(repre-
sented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

(Riga, Latvia)

It relies on four pleas in law in that regard.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

First, the applicant submits that the decision of the Commission
does not satisfy the requirements of Article 7 of Regulation (EC)
No 1/2003 (1). The decision infringes the principle of legality
because it does not make it clear which practices are prohibited,
is contradictory in itself and is, in addition, contrary to other
administrative practice of the Commission. The applicant also
complains of an infringement of the principle of proportionality
and misuse of powers, as the Commission was guided by irrele-
vant considerations beyond criteria relevant to competition law
and thereby exceeded its powers.

Form of order sought

— Annul Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 16 July
2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and
Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38698 — CISAC); and

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

C 313/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.12.2008

Pleas in law and main arguments

the present application,

the applicant seeks,
By means of
pursuant to Article 230 EC, the annulment of Article 3 of
Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 of 16 July 2008 relating
to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case
COMP/C2/38698 — CISAC) alleging that 24 of CISAC's (1) EEA
based societies, including the applicant, engaged in a concerted
practice ‘by coordinating the territorial delineations of the reci-
procal representation mandates granted to one another in a way
which limits a licence to the domestic territory of each
collecting society’.

The main pleas and arguments are similar or identical to those
raised in Case T-413/08.

(1) Refers to the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and

Composers (‘CISAC’).

Action brought on 29 September 2008 — IMRO v
Commission

(Case T-415/08)

(2008/C 313/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Irish Music Rights Organisation Ltd (The) — Eagras
um Chearta Cheolta (IMRO) (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by:
M. Favart, lawyer and D. Collins, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 16 July
2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and
Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698-CISAC); and

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

findings in Article 3 of the contested decision stating that terri-
torial delineations of
the reciprocal representation mandates
granted by the authors' society to another constitute a concerted
practice in violation of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA.

The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its
claims.

First, the applicant submits that the Commission committed an
error of assessment, infringed the Article 81 EC and violated its
obligation to state reasons foreseen by Article 253 EC by
deciding that the parallel territorial delineation included in the
reciprocal representation agreements concluded by the applicant
and the other CISAC members is the result of a concerted prac-
tice. It claims that the level of evidence put forward by the
Commission in the decision is insufficient to establish that the
parallel conduct is not the result of normal competitive condi-
tion but constitutes such a concerted practice. The applicant
further states that the presence of the delineation clause in all of
its reciprocal agreements is justified by the interest of
its
members.

Second, in the alternative, the applicant argues that, contrary to
the findings of the contested decision, the territorial delineation
by CISAC societies in their reciprocal representation agreements
is not
restrictive of competition within the meaning of
Article 81(1) EC because it concerns a form of competition that
is not worthy of protection. Nevertheless, to the extent that the
alleged concerted practice on territorial delineations should be
considered to restrict competition, the applicant claims that it
cannot be considered illegal or infringing Article 81(1) EC
because it
is necessary and proportionate to the legitimate
objective of protecting the rights of the societies' members and
the authors.

Action brought on 29 September 2008 — EAÜ v
Commission

(Case T-416/08)

(2008/C 313/73)

Language of the case: English

Pleas in law and main arguments

Parties

By means of this application the applicant seeks partial annul-
ment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of Commission Decision
C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 (Case COMP/C2/38.698 —
CISAC) relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and
Article 53 EEA. Precisely, the applicant contests the Commission

Applicant: Eesti Autorite Ühing (EAÜ) (Tallinn, Estonia) (repre-
sented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities