CELEX: C2000/285/27
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-186/00: Action brought on 14 July 2000 by Società Conserve Italia Soc. Coop. a.r.l. against the Commission of the European Communities

C 285/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.10.2000
Action brought on 13 July 2000 by Métropole Télévision                   active effect to the contested decision. In short, the Com-
(M6) against the Commission of the European Communi-                     mission had exempted the system for the sub-licensing of
                               ties                                      Eurovision rights, whereas that system is by nature discriminat-
                                                                         ory. Lastly, the applicant maintains that, by adopting the
                                                                         contested decision, the Commission has committed a misuse
                         (Case T-185/00)                                 of powers.
                         (2000/C 285/26)
                                                                         (1) OJ 2000 L 151, p. 18.
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 July 2000 by Métropole Télé-
vision (M6), established at Neuilly/Seine (France), represented
by Didier Théophile, of the Paris Bar.
                                                                         Action brought on 14 July 2000 by Società Conserve
                                                                         Italia Soc. Coop. a.r.l. against the Commission of the
                                                                                             European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul all the provisions of Commission Decision                                             (Case T-186/00)
      2000/400/EC dated 10 May 2000 (Case IV/32.150 Euro-
      vision);
                                                                                                  (2000/C 285/27)
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
Pleas in law and principal arguments
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 14 July 2000 by Società Conserve
The applicant is contesting the Commission’s decision of
                                                                         Italia Soc. Coop. a.r.l., established at S. Lazzaro di Savena,
10 May 2000 declaring Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of
                                                                         represented by Marina Averani, Andrea Pisaneschi and Stefano
the EEA Agreement to be inapplicable to certain agreements
                                                                         Zunarelli, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg
of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) governing the
                                                                         at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 13 B Avenue Guillaume.
acquisition of television rights to sporting events, the exchange
of sports programmes within the framework of Eurovision
and access to Eurovision sports rights for third parties (1). That       The applicant claims that the Court should:
decision was adopted as a result of the judgment of the Court
of First Instance of 11 July 1996 in Joined Cases T-528/93,
T-542/93, T-543/93 and T-546/93 Métropole Télévision and                 —     annul, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 230
Others v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance                      EC, the Commission’s decision of 3 May 2000 (C (2000)
annulled the Commission’s exemption decision of 11 June                        1099);
1993.
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant complains, first of all, that the Commission is
asserting, contrary to what the Court of First Instance held in
its aforementioned judgment, that its decision dated 11 June             Pleas in law and principal arguments
1993 did not include the criteria for EBU membership. On the
basis of that postulation, the new criteria adopted by the EBU
following delivery of the judgment of the Court of First                 The present action is directed against the Commission’s
Instance have been wrongly excluded from the scope of the                decision of 3 May 2000 (C (2000) 1099), notified on 9 May
decision.                                                                2000, which ‘withdraws the grant of aid by EAGGF, Guidance
                                                                         Section, for project No 9 (beneficiary: Massalombarda
                                                                         Colombani S.p.A.) in the context of operational programme
In addition, the applicant maintains that the criteria for EBU           No 91.C.T.I.T.01 approved by Commission Decision
membership are manifestly anti-competitive. It goes on to                No C(91)2255/6 of 28.10.1991, and which reduces the
complain that the Commission has unlawfully given retro-                 amount payable in respect of that operational programme’.
 ---pagebreak--- 7.10.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 285/15
The applicant points out in that regard that, one year before it         —     infringement of the Treaty, on account of the contradic-
acquired Massalombarda Colombani, an inspection had been                       tory nature of the reasons given in the contested decision.
carried out jointly by the Italian Finance Ministry and the
Commission at the premises of that company for the purposes
of verifying the implementation of the EAGGF project referred            (1) OJ L 374 of 31.12.1988, p. 1.
to above. Certain irregularities were discovered during the
course of that inspection. The following year (again, prior to
the acquisition by Conserve Italia), various further irregularities
were ascertained. In consequence of those irregularities estab-
lished in 1994, the defendant proceeded in 1997 to discon-
tinue one of the four projects checked (that relating to the
Massalombarda plant).
                                                                         Action brought on 14 July 2000 by Comité International
                                                                         de la Rayonne et des Fibres Synthétiques against the
                                                                                  Commission of the European Communities
By the contested decision, the Commission has now withdrawn
the aid for project No 9.
                                                                                                  (Case T-188/00)
                                                                                                  (2000/C 285/28)
The applicant points out that the situation at issue has arisen
not as a result of any conduct or acts on the part of the
applicant, which now finds itself — solely in consequence of                                 (Language of the case: English)
the acquisition and subsequent amalgamation with Massalom-
barda — formally in dispute with the Commission, but rather
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
as a result of a project organised previously by an earlier
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
company with which the applicant had no connection what-
                                                                         European Communities on 14 July 2000 by Comité Inter-
ever. Despite this, the circumstances surrounding the EAGGF
                                                                         national de la Rayonne et des Fibres Synthétiques (Brussels),
projects of Massalombarda threaten to frustrate the investment
                                                                         represented by Denis Waelbroeck and Mats Johnsson, of
made by Conserve Italia, which it cannot recoup or recover
                                                                         Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels.
from the vendor.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:                          —     annul decision SG(2000)D/102503 of the European
                                                                               Commission contained in its letter of 20 March 2000 to
                                                                               the German Government relating to case N 406/99,
—     irregularities revealed in the Commission’s documenta-                   approving State aid to the undertaking Delon Filament
      tion;                                                                    GmbH;
                                                                         —     in case it finds the decision compatible with the Code on
                                                                               Aid to the Synthetic Fibres Industry, in terms of the
—     infringement of Article 24(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)                capacity reduction required, declare this Code unlawful
      No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down pro-                          under Article 241 EC;
      visions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88
      as regards coordination of the activities of the different
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the present
      Structural Funds between themselves and with the oper-
                                                                               proceedings.
      ations of the European Investment Bank and the other
      existing financial instruments (1). The Commission has
      infringed that provision in two respects:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
      (a)   the irregularities ascertained are wholly irrelevant as      By adopting the contested decision the Commission declared
            regards compliance with the conditions relating to           State aid granted by the German authorities to the undertaking
            the date of commencement of the works, and the               Delon Filament GmbH compatible with the EC Treaty. The aid
            Commission has in any event based its own decision           in question is intended to finance investments in the polyamide
            on an analysis of irrelevant documents, without              fibre production in a plant in Rudolstadt, Thuringia (Germany).
            attaching any weight to more sound evidence made
            available to it;                                             The applicant is a representative of producers of man-made
                                                                         fibres. It seeks the annulment of the decision on the following
                                                                         grounds:
      (b) having ascertained mere ‘irregularities’, it has with-
            drawn the aid, whereas it should, if anything, have          —     The Commission failed to explain how it has arrived at
            simply reduced it;                                                 the capacity figures for Delon quoted in the decision;