Case T-410/08: Action brought on 30 September 2008 — GEMA v Commission
Date: 2008-09-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Community, Germany, action for annulment (EU), copyright, intellectual property, music, principle of proportionality

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.