CELEX: 62004TB0464
Language: en
Date: 2009-06-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-464/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2009 — Impala v Commission (Competition — Concentration — Sony BMG joint venture — Action becoming devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

29.8.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 205/37
            
         Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2009 — Impala v Commission
   (Case T-464/04) (1)
   
   (Competition - Concentration - Sony BMG joint venture - Action becoming devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
   2009/C 205/69
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Independent Music Publishers and Labels Association (Impala, international association) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Crosby and J. Golding, Solicitors, and I. Wekstein-Steg, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents)
   
      Interveners in support of the defendant: Bertelsmann AG (Gütersloh, Germany) (represented by: P. Chappatte and J. Boyce, Solicitors); Sony BMG Music Entertainment BV (Vianen, Netherlands); and Sony Corporation of America (NewYork, New York, United States) (represented by N. Levy, Barrister, and by R. Snelders and T. Graf, lawyers)
   
      Re:
   
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/188/EC of 19 July 2004 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.3333 — Sony/BMG) (OJ 2005 L 62, p. 30).
   
      Operative part of the order
   
   
               1.
            
            
               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Each party is to bear its own costs, both before the Court of First Instance and before the Court of Justice.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.