Case T-568/08: Action brought on 17 December 2008 — M6 v Commission
Date: 2008-12-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, access to information, action for annulment (EU), advertising, audiovisual industry, infringement of EU law, television

C 55/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.3.2009

Action brought on 17 December 2008 — M6 v
Commission

(Case T-568/08)

(2009/C 55/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

— a failure to state grounds, in so far as the Commission (i) did
not sufficiently justify the importance given in the contested
decision to the effect of the presidential announcement of
8 January 2008 which referred to the abolition of adver-
tising on the public channels, (ii) failed to take into consid-
eration the influence, on advertising regulation, of the ‘refo-
cusing’ of France Télévisions' activities towards those of a
public service and (iii) did not take into consideration the
responses of private operators, including the applicant.

Applicant: Métropole Télévision SA (M6)
France)
lawyers)

(Neuilly-sur-Seine,
(represented by: O. Freget and N. Chahid-Nouraï,

Action brought on 22 December 2008 — Visonic v OHIM
— Sedea Electronique (VISIONIC)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-569/08)

(2009/C 55/72)

Form of order sought

Language in which the application was lodged: English

— annul the decision of the European Commission of 16 July
2008 in Case N 279/2008-France (Capital endowment for
France Télévisions);

Parties

— require the Commission to initiate the formal investigation
procedure under the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC
in respect of State aid;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant applies for the annulment of Commission Deci-
sion C(2008) 3506 final of 16 July 2008, by which the
Commission had held State aid in the form of a capital endow-
ment of EUR 150 million in favour of France Télévisions to be
compatible with the common market. The applicant requests in
that context the initiation of the formal investigation procedure
in accordance with Article 88(2) EC.

In support of its application, the applicant raises three pleas
concerning the lawfulness of the contested decision alleging:

— a breach of the applicant's procedural rights, in so far as the
Commission's assessment, and especially that relating to the
direct causal link between the announcement of the Presi-
dent of the French Republic of 8 January 2008 concerning
the abolition of commercial advertising on the channels of
the France Télévisions group and the loss of income suffered
by those channels, would create difficulties such as to justify
the initiation of
investigation procedure in
accordance with Article 88(2) EC so that the competitors of
the France Télévisions group could set out their position;

the formal

— a failure of the Commission to provide adequate information
concerning the cause of the loss of advertising revenue and
intended use of the capital endowment granted to France
Télévisions, in so far as the Commission did not verify with
the required neutrality,
impartiality and thoroughness the
truth and reliability of the information which was communi-
cated to it concerning the real causes of France Télévisions'
advertising losses and the final use to which the sums paid
by the French Republic to France Télévisions were to be put;

Applicant: Visonic Ltd (Tel Aviv,
Beschorner and C. Thomas, lawyers)

Israel)

(represented by: A.

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sedea
Electronique SA (Seclin, France)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 14 October 2008 in joined cases
R 946/2007-2 and R 1151/2007-2;

— Declare Community trade mark No 1 562 982 ‘VISIONIC’

invalid in respect of all the goods concerned;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings
before the court and the other party to the proceedings
before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the adminis-
trative proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

— Set a date for an oral hearing in this case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of
the application for a
declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘VISIONIC’ for goods in
class 9

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade
mark: The applicant