CELEX: C2001/134/53
Language: en
Date: 2001-05-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-27/01: Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli against the European Central Bank

C 134/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.5.2001
Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Carmine Salvatore                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
           Tralli against the European Central Bank
                                                                         —     annul, in whole or in part, the Commission’s decision
                         (Case T-27/01)                                        under Article 3(a) of Directive 89/552/EEC (as amended)
                                                                               that measures taken by the United Kingdom to ensure
                        (2001/C 134/53)                                        that broadcasters within its jurisdiction do not broadcast
                                                                               events of major importance for society on an exclusive
                                                                               basis are compatible with Community law, and communi-
                                                                               cating the UK measures to the other Member States so as
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                               to oblige them to ensure that broadcasters within their
                                                                               respective jurisdictions comply with the UK measures;
An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 5 February 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli, of Nidderau              —     declare under Article 241 EC that Article 3(a) TWF
(Germany), represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and                  Directive, in whole or in part, is inapplicable and cannot
Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsanwälte, with an address for service in               serve as a basis for the Commission’s decision; and
Luxembourg.
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay all the costs of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    proceedings.
(1) annul the defendant’s decision, contained in a document
      dated 29 January 2001, rejecting the applicant’s com-
      plaint;                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
(2) annul the unilateral extension of the applicant’s pro-
      bationary period;                                                  The present application requests the annulment of the decision
                                                                         of the Commission of or around 18 November 2000 under
(3) order the defendant to pay the costs.                                Article 3(a) of Directive 89/552, of 3 October 1989, on the
                                                                         coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation
                                                                         or administrative Action in Member States concerning the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          pursuit of television broadcasting activities (1) (the Directive).
                                                                         In that decision the Commission found compatible with
                                                                         Community Law United Kingdom (UK) measures prohibiting
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those               broadcasters from broadcasting certain listed sporting events
advanced in Case T-373/00 Tralli v ECB (not yet published).              in a way that deprived a substantial proportion of the UK from
                                                                         viewing them and communicated the UK measures to the
                                                                         other Member States in order to ensure that broadcasters
                                                                         within their respective jurisdictions comply with the UK
                                                                         measures.
                                                                         In support of their claims, the applicants submit that the
Action brought on 12 February 2001 by Kirch Media                        decision infringes:
GmbH & Co KgaA and Kirchmedia WM AG against the
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         —     the principle of proportionality,
                         (Case T-33/01)
                                                                         —     the applicants’ right to property by fundamentally affect-
                                                                               ing its ability to dispose of its World Cup rights, thereby
                        (2001/C 134/54)                                        affecting their value,
                   (Language of the case: English)                       —     the applicants’ freedom to carry on an economic activity
                                                                               by affecting their ability to undertake their business in
                                                                               the managing, marketing and sale of the World Cup
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      rights,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 February 2001 by Kirch Media
GmbH & Co KgaA, a company incorporated under Germany                     —     the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
law and Kirchmedia WM AG, a company incorporated under                         and the principle of non-retroactivity by applying
Swiss law, represented by Professor Carl Otto Lenz, Andreas                    measures to rights which the applicants purchased before
Bardong and Edward William Batchelor, of Baker & McKenzie,                     the entry into force of the UK measures or Article 3(a) of
London (UK).                                                                   the Directive,