CELEX: C2001/118/18
Language: en
Date: 2001-04-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-52/01: Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Commission of the European Communities against TV Internazionale SpA

21.4.2001                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 118/11
      Is Article 3a(1)(e) of the directive to be interpreted as           Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Commission of
      meaning that the information on the identification of the           the European Communities against Beta Television SpA
      competitor must be restricted to the extent absolutely                                    (Videomusic/TMC2)
      necessary and it is therefore not permitted if, in addition
      to the competitor’s name, its company logo (if it exists)
      and its shop are shown?                                                                      (Case C-51/01)
                                                                                                  (2001/C 118/17)
(1) OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18.
(2) OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17.                                                 An action against Beta Television SpA (Videomusic/TMC2)
                                                                          was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities on 5 February 2001 by the Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities, represented by Bernard Mongin,
                                                                          assisted by Massimo Moretto, avvocato.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     order the defendant to repay, to the Commission, EUR
Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Commission of                              382 312, together with interest as from 14 July 1999
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                           until actual payment;
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                            (Case C-47/01)
                           (2001/C 118/16)                                Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                 The action, brought on the basis of an arbitration clause, seeks
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 Febru-              the repayment of sums of money advanced in the context of
ary 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                   Contract No 70320, signed on 13 November 1996, in the
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, with an address for               context of the 16:9 Action Plan to promote the broadcast of
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la                high-definition television programmes in Europe.
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          The beneficiary, within the period laid down in the contract,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               broadcast only 6 hours and 34 minutes of programmes in
                                                                          16:9 format instead of the 500 hours offered and contracted
                                                                          for. The Commission therefore decided to terminate the
—     declare that, by failing to draw up or, in any event,               contract, governed by Belgian law, for breach of contract by
      communicate to the Commission, the plan, outline or                 the defendant.
      inventory summary required by Articles 4(1) and 11 of
      Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of 16 September 1996 on
      the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlori-
      nated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the Kingdom of Spain has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against TV Internazionale
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                         SpA
The pleas in law and main arguments relied on are set out in                                       (Case C-52/01)
the application.
                                                                                                  (2001/C 118/18)
(1) OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31.                                                 An action against TV Internazionale SpA was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 Febru-
                                                                          ary 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Bernard Mongin, assisted by Massimo Moretto,
                                                                          avvocato.
 ---pagebreak--- C 118/12              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      21.4.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  b)   if the answer to question (a) is yes, from what date
                                                                                  and on what basis should such interest be calculated?
—     order the defendant to repay, to the Commission, EUR
      263 656 together with interest as from 14 July 1999               2.   On the proper interpretation of Article 1(4) of the Second
      until actual payment;                                                  Motor Insurance Directive, in circumstances where the
                                                                             compensating body itself has an obligation to investigate
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  the victim’s injury and loss (and to incur the costs thereof,
                                                                             including the cost of medical and other reports):
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              a)   must the arrangements concerning the provision of
                                                                                  compensation by the body include provision for the
The action, brought on the basis of an arbitration clause, seeks                  payment of the costs incurred by a victim in
the repayment of sums of money advanced in the context of                         preparing and making his application to that body
Contract No 70317, signed on 13 November 1996, in the                             for compensation?
context of the 16:9 Action Plan to promote the broadcast of
high-definition television programmes in Europe.                             b)   if the answer to question (a) is yes, on what basis are
                                                                                  those costs to be calculated in a case where that
The beneficiary, within the period laid down in the contract,                     body has made an offer to the victim in excess of
broadcast only 43 hours and 20 minutes of programmes in                           the amount that he finally recovers, which offer the
16:9 format instead of the 500 hours offered and contracted                       victim declined to accept?
for. The Commission therefore decided to terminate the
contract, governed by Belgian law, for breach of contract by            3.   On the proper interpretation of Article 1(4) of the Second
the defendant.                                                               Motor Insurance Directive, if the victim’s application for
                                                                             compensation is determined by a body that is not a
                                                                             court, must he have a full right to appeal against that
                                                                             determination to a court, on both the facts and the law,
                                                                             rather than an appeal to an independent arbitrator having
                                                                             the following principal characteristics:
                                                                             i)   the victim may appeal to the arbitrator on both the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                           facts and the law;
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, by
order of that court of 17 May 2000, in the case of
                                                                             ii)  when giving notice of appeal, the victim may make
Samuel Sidney Evans against 1) Secretary of State for the
                                                                                  further representations and adduce further evidence
Environment, Transport and the Regions and 2) Motor
                                                                                  to the compensating body upon which the compen-
                        Insurers’ Bureau
                                                                                  sating body may alter its award prior to the appeal;
                         (Case C-63/01)                                      iii) the victim is provided in advance with a copy of all
                                                                                  the material to be provided to the arbitrator and is
                        (2001/C 118/19)                                           given the opportunity to add any material that he
                                                                                  wishes in response;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                        iv)  the arbitrator makes an award, without an oral
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, of 17 May                      hearing, in which he or she decides what award the
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 13 February                     compensating body ought to make and gives reasons
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Samuel Sidney                       for that decision;
Evans against 1) Secretary of State for the Environment,
Transport and the Regions and 2) Motor Insurers’ Bureau, on                  v)   if the victim is dissatisfied, he is entitled to appeal
the following questions:                                                          from the arbitrator to the Courts but he may do so
                                                                                  only on the grounds of serious irregularity affecting
1.    On the proper interpretation of Council Directive                           the arbitration or on a question of law (including
      84/5/EEC (1) of 30th December 1983 on the approxi-                          whether there was any evidence to support any
      mation of the laws of the Member States relating to                         particular conclusion of the arbitrator or whether
      insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of                  any particular conclusion was one to which no
      motor vehicles (‘the Second Motor Insurance Directive’):                    arbitrator could reasonably come upon the evi-
                                                                                  dence), and in the case of an appeal on a question of
      a)    must the arrangements concerning the provision of                     law, permission to appeal must be obtained from
            compensation by the body established or authorised                    the Court which will not be given unless the decision
            pursuant to Article 1(4) include provision for the                    of the arbitrator is obviously wrong and it is just
            payment of interest on the sums found to be payable                   and proper in all the circumstances for the Court to
            for the damage to property or personal injuries?                      determine the question.