CELEX: C1999/160/52
Language: en
Date: 1999-06-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-68/99: Action brought on 5 March 1999 by NV TODITEC against the Commission of the European Communities

C 160/28               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.6.1999
Action brought on 4 March 1999 by ‘K’ against the                         Action brought on 5 March 1999 by NV TODITEC against
         Commission of the European Communities                                  the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-67/99)
                                                                                                    (Case T-68/99)
                         (1999/C 160/51)
                                                                                                   (1999/C 160/52)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                    (Language of the case: English)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 March 1999 by ‘K’, represented
by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2, rue du                 ties was brought before the Court of the First Instance of the
Fort Rheinsheim.                                                          European Communities on 5 March 1999 by NV Toditec,
                                                                          represented by Mrs Elke Ballon, with an address for service in
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr Koen De Vleeschauwer,
                                                                          6, rue Heindrich Heine.
— annul the decision of 15 May 1998 by which the
     appointing authority refused the request for assistance
     under article 24 of the Staff Regulations submitted by the           The applicant claims that the Court should:
     applicant on 20 March 1998 by note addressed to S. Smidt,
     Director-General of DG IX, pursuant to article 90(1) of the          — declare the application of NV Toditec admissible and well
     Staff Regulations,                                                        founded,
— annul the express decision rejecting the complaint lodged               — in consequence, order the Commission of the European
     by the applicant in the Secretariat-General of the defendant              Communities to pay NV Toditec the equivalent in euro of
     institution on 18 August 1998, the said rejection decision                the sum of 74 967 EUR, together with interest at the rate
     having been signed on 23 November 1998 by Mr Liikanen,                    of 7 % (legal rate applicable in Belgium) from 5 June 1998,
     Member of the Commission, and notified to the applicant
     on 4 December 1998,
                                                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs of the procedure.
— order the defendant to pay all the costs in any event.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, a Commission official whose son attended the               On 13 February 1996 the applicant, by entering into an
‘Clovis’ crèche in Brussels, submitted a request under article            agreement with the European Community, represented by the
24 of the Staff Regulations seeking the Commission’s assistance           Commission (DG III – Industry), undertook to carry out several
in connection with the procedure initiated in relation to                 tasks in a project called ‘Dissemination Coordination for OMI’
instances of paedophilia which had occurred in that crèche.               or ‘Discomi’ It was concluded within the framework of the
He requested, first, as a civil claimant, reimbursement of, and           Esprit Programme of the European Union. The overall objective
acceptance of responsibility for, all lawyer’s fees and legal costs       of the ‘Discomi’ project was to improve the visibility of ‘OMI’
incurred in the context of the procedure before the Brussels              (Open Microprocessor Systems Initiative) in general and of its
Public Prosecutor and, second, compensation for all damage                commercially available results in particular to the widest
suffered by his family and by him on account of the matters               possible audience, through the facilitation and co-ordination
giving rise to the criminal proceedings.                                  of various dissemination measures. The tasks were to be
                                                                          carried out by the applicant as coordinator in co-operation
By the contested decision, the defendant refused that request,            with other organisations. The duration of the contract was 12
maintaining that the matter did not fall within the scope of              months from 1 December 1995, divided into two phases
article 24 of the Staff Regulations, since it had no connection           (period I from 1 December 1995 to 31 May 1996; Period II
with the applicant’s position or duties.                                  from 1 June to 30 November 1996).
In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement
of the Staff Regulations, particularly article 24, as well as             The applicant is based on the failure by the Commission to
failure to observe general principles of law, such as those               discharge its contractual obligations under the ‘Discomi’
relating to the right to fair hearing, the duty to have regard for        contract.
the welfare and interests of officials, the protection of legitimate
expectations and the obligation to provide a lawful and
relevant statement of reasons. According to the applicant, his            The applicants submits that the Commission wrongfully
grievance is that, by refusing the request for assistance —               refused to accept the costs that were submitted by the applicant
which was made, moreover, at the end of a procedure which                 in relation to the project. No reasons were given for the refusal,
did not comply with the basic rules generally applied and in              nor was the applicant given the opportunity to defend itself.
force in the defendant institution —, the latter contravened              The Commission was wrong in its assessment of the major
the rules and principles invoked.                                         efforts of the applicant and its employees to make the Discomi
                                                                          project a success. The contract was correctly executed by the
                                                                          applicant and all costs submitted by the applicant are justified.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.6.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 160/29
According to the applicant, the main errors of the Commission            By decision of 30 July 1998, the United Kingdom Secretary of
are:                                                                     State for Culture, Media and Sport suspended the relaying of
                                                                         the programme ‘Rendez-Vous Television’ on the ground that
— the reduction of the labour of the applicant,                          it manifestly and seriously infringed article 22 of Council
                                                                         Directive 89/552/EEC (the ‘Television Without Frontiers’
— the refusal to accept costs for third party assistance,                Directive, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’) (1). This was
                                                                         followed by the commencement of various proceedings before
— the refusal to accept ‘other costs’ and                                the United Kingdom courts; however, those proceedings did
                                                                         not prevent the entry into force of the Secretary of State’s
— the refusal to accept, for the period from 1 June 1996 to              Decision on 11 September 1998.
     30 November 1996, any of the costs submitted by the
     applicant.
                                                                         The Commission, having received notification of that decision,
                                                                         informed the United Kingdom authorities, by the contested
                                                                         decision, that the suspension measures in issue were compat-
                                                                         ible with Community law.
Action brought on 5 March 1999 by Eurotica Rendez-
Vous Television Danish Satellite (DSTV) A/S against the                  By the present application, the applicant seeks annulment of
         Commission of the European Communities                          that decision, on the ground that the United Kingdom has
                                                                         infringed the principles of non-discrimination and pro-
                         (Case T-69/99)                                  portionality in its interpretation of article 22 of the Directive.
                        (1999/C 160/53)
                                                                         The applicant maintains that, whilst article 22 of the Directive
                   (Language of the case: French)                        confers on the Member States extensive powers to assess
                                                                         whether television broadcasts include programmes which
                                                                         might be seriously harmful to minors, in particular where they
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                contain pornography or gratuitous violence, and despite
ties was brought before the Court of the First Instance of               the considerable leeway which the Member States enjoy in
the European Communities on 5 March 1999 by Eurotica                     interpreting that concept, they are none the less required, in so
Rendez-Vous Television Danish Satellite (DSTV) A/S, the                  doing, to observe Community law and, in particular, the
registered office of which is situated in Frederiksberg (Den-            principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.
mark), represented by Jean-Paul Hordies and Agnès Maqua, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange.
                                                                         The measures taken by the United Kingdom authorities are:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Decision of the Commission of 22 December                    — discriminatory, since similar, if not ‘harder’, programmes
     1998, adopted on the basis of article 22 Directive                       are currently relayed on the territory of the United
     89/552/EEC, by which it decided that the measures                        Kingdom, some of them with the benefit of a United
     adopted by the United Kingdom authorities, prohibiting                   Kingdom permit,
     the relaying of the applicant’s programme within the
     territory of that country, are in conformity with Com-
     munity law,                                                         — contrary to the principle of proportionality, since the
                                                                              applicant has taken all possible measures — including, in
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                                   particular, those referred to in article 22 of the Directive
                                                                              — to protect minors, and
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         — contrary to article 59 of the EC Treaty.
The applicant, a special-interest television channel established
under Danish law, the majority interest in which is held by a
Luxembourg holding company, distributes and sells a tele-
vision programme which is relayed by satellite under the name
‘Eurotica Rendez-Vous Television’. It offers that service, in            (1) Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordi-
particular, to viewers in various Member States, including the               nation of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or
United Kingdom. The broadcasts begin at about 00.30 a.m.                     administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of
and finish at 5.00 a.m. Between 00.10 a.m. and 00.30 a.m.,                   television broadcasting activities (OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23;
the programme is relayed via the PAL system and in unencoded                 corrigendum: OJ L 331, 16.11.1989, p. 51).
form (for promotional purposes); from 00.30 a.m. to 5.00
a.m., the transmission is encrypted, inasmuch as the pro-
gramme then comprises three films of an erotic nature. The
transmission of the program and the content of what is
broadcast are strictly controlled.