CELEX: C2003/019/76
Language: en
Date: 2003-01-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-347/02: Action brought on 22 November 2002 by Aunacable, S.A.Unipersonal, Retecal Sociedad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León, S.A., Euskaltel, S.A., Telecable de Avilés, S.A. Unipersonal, Telecable de Oviedo, S.A. Unipersonal, Telecable de Gĳón, S.A. Unipersonal, R Cable y Telecomunicaciones Galicia, S.A., and Tenaria S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

C 19/40                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.1.2003
The applicant finally submits that the defendant committed               by Admira, by means of an exchange of shares. According to
serious procedural irregularities. More particularly, the defend-        the notification, following the successful completion of the
ant did not respect the principle of good administration, the            abovementioned operation, the resulting undertaking would
right of parties to be heard and the duty to state reasons for its       come under the joint control of Prisa and Groupe Canal+.
decisions.
                                                                         In support of its arguments, the applicants allege:
                                                                         —     lack of competence of the Commission, in that it is not
                                                                               empowered to refer a case to the authorities of a
                                                                               Member State when the markets concerned affect intra-
                                                                               Community trade and more than one Member State;
Action brought on 22 November 2002 by Cableuropa,
S.A., Región de Murcia de Cable, S.A., Valencia de Cable,
                                                                         —     infringement of Article 9 of the abovementioned regu-
S.A., Mediterránea Sur Sistemas de Cable, S.A., y Mediter-
                                                                               lation on concentrations in that the contested decision
ránea Norte Sistemas de Cable, S.A. against Commission
                                                                               makes a ‘blank’ reference to the national authorities;
                of the European Communities
                                                                         —     failure to observe the obligation to provide reasons,
                         (Case T-346/02)                                       specifically as regards the exceptional nature of the
                                                                               reference in cases in which the markets in question affect
                         (2003/C 19/75)                                        a substantial part of the common market.
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                        (1 ) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 November 2002 by Cableuropa,
S.A. (having its registered office in Aravaca, Madrid), Región
de Murcia de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in Murcia,        Action brought on 22 November 2002 by Aunacable,
Spain), Valencia de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in         S.A.Unipersonal, Retecal Sociedad Operadora de Teleco-
Madrid), Mediterránea sur Sistemas de Cable, S.A. (having its            municaciones de Castilla y León, S.A., Euskaltel, S.A.,
registered office in Alicante, Spain) y Mediterránea Norte               Telecable de Avilés, S.A. Unipersonal, Telecable de Ovie-
Sistemas de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in Castellón,      do, S.A. Unipersonal, Telecable de Gijón, S.A. Uniper-
Spain), represented by Luis Felipe Castresana Sánchez and                sonal, R Cable y Telecomunicaciones Galicia, S.A., and
Gonzalo Samaniego Bordiu, lawyers.                                       Tenaria S.A. against Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                                       munities
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                                                   (Case T-347/02)
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2002
      referring Case COMP/M.2845 - Sogecable/Canalsatélite                                          (2003/C 19/76)
      Digital/Vía Digital to the competent authorities in the
      Kingdom of Spain pursuant to Article 9 of Council
      Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89;                                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
—     order the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          European Communities on 22 November 2002 by Aunacable,
                                                                         S.A.Unipersonal (having its registered office in Madrid), Retecal
                                                                         Sociedad Operadora de Telecomunicaciones de Castilla y León,
The decision contested by the present application concerns the           S.A. (having its registered office in Boecilli, Valladolid, Spain),
notification, pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC)          Euskaltel, S.A.(having its registered office in Zamudio-Bizkaia),
No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of                         Telecable de Avilés, S.A. Unipersonal (registered in Avilés),
concentrations between undertakings ( 1), of a planned concen-           Telecable de Oviedo, S.A. Unipersonal (having its registered
tration by which Sogecable SA, controlled by Promotora de                office in Oviedo), Telecable de Gijón, S.A. Unipersonal (having
Informaciones S.A (Prisa) and Groupe Canal +S.A., the latter             its registered office in Gijón), R Cable y Telecomunicaciones
belonging to the Vivendi Universal group, signs an agreement             Galicia, S.A.(having its registered office in A Coruña, Spain)
with the Admira Media S.A. group, belonging to the Telefónica            and Tenaria S.A.(having its registered office in Cordovilla,
S.A group, with the aim of merging Sogecable and DTS                     Navarra, Spain), represented by Antonio Creus Carreras,
Distribuidora de Televisión Digital S.A. (Vía Digital), controlled       Natalia Lacalle Mangas and José Mª Jiménez Laiglesia, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- 25.1.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 19/41
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2002
      referring Case COMP/M.2845 - Sogecable/Canalsatélite                 Applicant for the Com-        INTER SERVICE S.r.l.
      Digital/Vía Digital to the competent authorities in the              munity trade mark:
      Kingdom of Spain pursuant to Article 9 of Council
      Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89;                                         The Community trade           SEPHORA (registration appli-
                                                                           mark concerned:               cation No 593.806 for goods in
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                             Classes 9, 18 and 25
                                                                           Proprietor of the right to    The applicant
                                                                           the trade mark or sign
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            asserted by way of oppo-
                                                                           sition in the opposition
                                                                           proceedings:
The pleas in law and main arguments are essentially those
previously put forward in Case T-346/02 CABLEUROPA and                     Trade mark or sign            French word mark SEPHORA for
Others v Commission.                                                       asserted by way of oppo-      goods in Classes 35 and 42
                                                                           sition in the opposition
                                                                           proceedings:
The applicants allege, in particular, breach of the principle of
good administration, inasmuch as the Commission not only
abandoned a practice and a consolidated policy in decisions to             Decision of the Oppo-         Opposition rejected
refer cases to the market affected by the operation in question,           sition Division:
it also failed to take into account a case which is closely linked
to the concentration operation and involving the same parties.             Decision of the Board of      Appeal rejected
In any event, the Commission is better placed than the national            Appeal:
authorities to analyse the abovementioned operation for,
among other reasons, the overriding questions of Community                 Grounds of claim:             Misapplication of Article 8(4) of
interest which the later raises.                                                                         Regulation No 40/94
Action brought on 22 November 2002 by the company
Sephora against Office for Harmonization in the Internal                   Action brought on 26 November 2002 by Ikegami Elec-
          Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)                          tronics (Europe) GmbH against the Council of the Euro-
                                                                                                      pean Union
                          (Case T-349/02)
                                                                                                   (Case T-350/02)
                          (2003/C 19/77)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 19/78)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: English)
An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                 An action against the Council of the European Union was
22 November 2002 by Sephora, whose registered office is in                 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Levallois-Perret (France), represented by Michel-Paul Escande,             Communities on 26 November 2002 by Ikegami Electronics
lawyer.                                                                    (Europe) GmbH, Neuss, Germany, represented by Mr Laurent
                                                                           Ruessmann, lawyer with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade
      marks and designs) of 9 September 2002 (Case R 425/                  —     annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1696/
      2000-2);                                                                   2002;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                —     order the Council to pay the costs.