CELEX: C1999/188/66
Language: en
Date: 1999-07-03 00:00:00
Title: Case T-95/99: Action brought on 16 April 1999 by S.A. Satellimages TV5 against the Commission of the European Communities

C 188/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3.7.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, who is the owner of a plantation in French                The applicant had asked for part of her salary to be transferred
Polynesia, states that he participated in a project for the              to the Menton (France) branch of the Banca SanPaolo, and
planting of tropical fruit trees on the Island of Raiatea which,         with her request attached a declaration that she had opened a
in accordance with promises given during a meeting of the                savings account designated ‘Home savings plan’ for the
farmers of Ile-sous-le-Vent in October 1991, was to be                   purpose of acquiring immovable property in France.
subsidised by the European Development Fund (EDF). The
funds assigned to that project were paid over, but were
                                                                         The applicant contests the condition stipulated by the Com-
apparently misapplied by the Government of French Polynesia,
                                                                         mission on the basis of Article 4 of its internal directive of
which was subsequently obliged to repay the money it had
                                                                         30 July 1993 (I.A. No 815 of 11 August 1993) to the effect
used improperly.
                                                                         that the transfer of the above sum is contingent upon the issue
                                                                         of an undertaking by the Banca SanPaolo, Menton, that it will
The applicant maintains that the fact that the EDF delegation            inform the Commission of all movements of funds made by
proposed the said project to the farmers of Raiatea and Tahaa            the applicant so that their whereabouts can be monitored.
gave them a legitimate expectation that the subsidy would be
paid to them. In accordance with Article 155 of the EC Treaty,
the Commission was under a duty to ensure that the funds                 In support of her claims, the applicant argues that the
assigned to the project were in fact paid to the farmers who             Commission has infringed and misapplied Article 17(2)(b) of
had, for their part, complied with the agreement.                        Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
The applicant concludes from the foregoing that there is a               On that point, the applicant maintains that the purpose of
direct link between the undertaking given by the EDF and the             that provision is to enable an official who has financial
harm he suffered, which is in the amount of the promised                 responsibilities in a country other than his place of employ-
subsidy.                                                                 ment to have part of his disposable income transferred in the
                                                                         currency of that country in order to meet regular and certified
                                                                         expenses. It would therefore be unjustified to make the transfer
                                                                         of funds contingent upon the issue of a declaration such as
                                                                         that sought by the Commission. Also, the Commission’s
                                                                         request is in contravention of the general rules governing bank
                                                                         secrecy and the protection of privacy, both at the European
Action brought on 19 April 1999 by Beatrice Bonaiti                      level and in France. According to the applicant, it is difficult to
Brighina against the Commission of the European Com-                     imagine what information the banks are under a duty to
                            munities                                     protect, if not the details of clients’ transactions.
                         (Case T-93/99)
                        (1999/C 188/65)
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         Action brought on 16 April 1999 by S.A. Satellimages TV5
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 April 1999 by Beatrice Bonaiti                                          (Case T-95/99)
Brighina, represented by Mirco Rizzoglio and Franco Colussi,
of the Milan and Luxembourg Bars, with an address for service                                    (1999/C 188/66)
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Franco Colussi, 36 Rue De
Wiltz.
                                                                                           (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— annul the internal Commission directive of 30 July 1993                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    (published in I.A No 815 of 11 August 1993), and the                 European Communities on 16 April 1999 by S.A. Satellimages
    refusal of 24 June 1998 (Prot. No 563 IX.B.4 VT/D(98)) of            TV5, represented by Eduard Marissens, with an address for
    Directorate General IX (Personnel and Adrninistration) and           service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong, 14
    the measure rejecting the complaint (Prot. No 3964 of                rue des Bains.
    22 Decernber 1998) concerning the transfer of FF 7 600
    per month, being part of the applicant’s salary, to her
    account designated ‘Home savings plan’ at the Menton                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
    branch of the Banca San Paolo;
                                                                         — declare annulled and void the decision, adopted by the
— in any event, award damages to be specified in the course                  defendant and contained in its letter of 15 February 1999
    of the proceedings;                                                      to the applicant, to reject the latter’s formal complaint of
                                                                             18 March 1998;
— order the Commission to pay all expenses and fees
    occasioned by the proceedings.                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 3.7.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 188/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty
                                                                            In the relationship between the satellite broadcaster and
                                                                            the cable operator, the one payment reasonably to be
The applicant, a public interest broadcaster, having its head-              expected is by the cable operator to the broadcaster as
quarters in France, whose shareholders are all the French-                  financial compensation for the authorisation. When the
speaking public service broadcasters of France, Belgium,                    opposite situation is found to exist, as in the case of the
Switzerland and Canada, challenges the decision, contained in               tariffs charged by Deutsche Telekom, this can only be due
the Commission’s letter of 15 February 1999, rejecting a                    to the abuse by the cable operator of the dominant position
complaint concerning Deutsche Telekom’s pricing policy in                   he occupies.
that, with regard to its cable television network, Deutsche
Telekom applies a system of dual levies, requiring payment              — infringement of the general principles of sound adminis-
from broadcasters such as the applicant as well as from the                 tration, of Article 86 and 155 of the EC Treaty and of
final consumers (the cable-connected households).                           Article 3(1) of Council Regulation No 17/62
                                                                            In rejecting the applicant’s complaint, the Commission has
                                                                            merely followed the precedent which it created for itself in
The applicant submits that the Commission’s letter of 15 Feb-               its Interim Report of 22 October 1993 in Case IV/34.463
ruary 1999 is to be regarded as containing a final decision                 -VPRT/Deutsche Telekom, in which the Commission
rejecting the complaint                                                     undertook a task that was not its own and acted outside
                                                                            the scope of its obligations under Article 155 and under
                                                                            Regulation No 17/62. The Commission has thus, without
— because it is exclusively based upon a definition of cable                there being any necessity or justification by virtue of the
    distribution as comprising two different services, one                  VPRT case, and without consulting third parties, implicitly,
    rendered to the satellite broadcaster and the other to the              but already definitively, granted its authorisation to Deuts-
    cable-connected household, which leads automatically to                 che Telekom to levy the contested tariff against satellite
    the conclusion that a commercial provider of these two                  broadcasters.
    services may request separate remuneration from their
    respective beneficiaries;
— because the Commission’s definition of cable distribution
    is not limited to Deutsche Telekom but covers all cable
    operators wherever they may be established in the Com-
    munity;
                                                                        Action brought on 26 April 1999 by ‘L’ against the
                                                                                 Commission of the European Communities
— because the Commission had already arrived at its defi-
    nition of cable distribution as comprising two separate                                     (Case T-102/99)
    services and at the principle of the tariff against satellite
    broadcasters in a so-called Interim Report of 22nd October
    1993 in Case No IV/34.463 VPRT/Deutsche Telekom.                                            (1999/C 188/67)
                                                                                           (Language of the case: French)
The applicant’s pleas are:
                                                                        An action was brought on 26 April 1999 before the Court of
— infringement of Articles 60 and 86 of the EC Treaty                   First Instance of the European Communities by ‘L’, represented
                                                                        by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique
                                                                        Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
    The Commission perpetrates a confusion between the                  Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue
    economic advantage that the authorised use by one                   de Cessange.
    undertaking of the product of another undertaking may
    generate for the latter and the notion of a ‘service’. In the
    case of cable distribution no service is being offered by the       The applicant claims that the Court should:
    cable operator to the broadcaster. On the contrary, the
    cable operator himself chooses, from among the pro-                 — annul the decisions rejecting the applicant’s requests of
    grammes already present on the radio and satellite waves,               25 February 1998 for recognition of his status as a
    those signals with which he wishes to compose his cable                 ‘registered partner’ and of 11 May 1998 for the extension
    offerings to the cable-connected households, if and when                to himself and his partner of all the rights, privileges and
    he obtains the corresponding broadcasters’ authorisations               benefits conferred on married officials and their spouses,
    to have their signals so retransmitted via cable. The sole
    service offered and supplied against remuneration is the
    cable offering to the cable-connected household.                    — order the defendant to pay the costs.