CELEX: C1999/265/10
Language: en
Date: 1999-09-18 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 June 1999 in Case T-17/96: Télévision Française 1 SA (TF1) v Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Public television broadcasting - Complaint - Action for failure to act - Commission's obligation to carry out an investigation - Time-limits - Procedure under Article 88(2) EC (ex Article 93(2)) - Serious difficulties - Article 81 EC (ex Article 85) - Service of formal notice - Adoption of a position - Article 86 EC (ex Article 90) - Whether admissible)

C 265/6                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.9.1999
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                                      of 3 June 1999
                           of 28 April 1999
                                                                           in Case T-17/96: Télévision Française 1 SA (TF1) v
                                                                                   Commission of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-221/95: Endemol Entertainment Holding BV v
         Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (State aid — Public television broadcasting — Complaint —
                                                                           Action for failure to act — Commission’s obligation to carry
                                                                           out an investigation — Time-limits — Procedure under
(Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
                                                                           Article 88(2) EC (ex Article 93(2)) — Serious difficulties —
declaring a concentration incompatible with the common
                                                                           Article 81 EC (ex Article 85) — Service of formal notice —
market — Article 22 of Regulation No 4064/89 — Rights
                                                                           Adoption of a position — Article 86 EC (ex Article 90) —
  of the defence — Access to the file — Dominant position)
                                                                                                  Whether admissible)
                           (1999/C 265/09)                                                           (1999/C 265/10)
                                                                                               (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case T-17/96: Télévision Française 1 SA (TF1), whose
                                                                           registered office is in Paris represented by Georges Vandersan-
In Case T-221/95: Endemol Entertainment Holding BV, estab-                 den, Jean-Paul Hordies and Agnès Maqua, of the Brussels Bar,
lished in Zevenend, Netherlands, represented by Onno                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
W. Brouver and Peter Wytinck, of the Brussels Bar, and Martijn             Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange v Commission of
van Empel, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service               the European Communities (Agents: Gérard Rozet and Klaus
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue                    Wiedner), supported by the French Republic (Agents Catherine
Goethe, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                   de Salins, Philippe Martinet and Frédérik Million) — application
Wouter Wils) — application for the annulment of Commission                 under Article 232 EC (ex Article 175) for a declaration that
Decision 96/346/EC of 20 September 1995 relating to a                      the Commission failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty
proceeding pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89                 by not adopting a position on the complaint submitted by
(IV/M.553-RTL/Veronica/Endemol) (0J 1996 L 134, p. 32),                    the applicant against the French Republic concerning the
which declared the agreement creating the joint venture                    compatibility of the methods of financing the public television
Holland Media Groep to be incompatible with the common                     broadcasting channels, France 2 and France 3 (France Télé-
market — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber,                      vision) with Articles 81 EC (ex Article 85), 86(1) EC (ex
Extended Composition), composed of: P. Lindh, President,                   Article 90(1)) and 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
R. Garcia-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, J.D. Cooke and M. Jaeger,               Article 87 EC), and, in the alternative, an application under
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 April               Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
1999, in which it:                                                         Article 230 EC) for annulment of the purported decision
                                                                           rejecting the applicant’s complaint, set out in a letter from the
                                                                           Commission of 11 December 1995 — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
1. Dismisses the application.
                                                                           of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts V. Tiili, J. Azizi and P. Men-
                                                                           gozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 3 Juni
                                                                           1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
2. Orders the applicant to bear, in addition to its own costs, one
     fifth of the costs incurred by the defendant until the withdrawal
     of the parties on 7 October 1996 together with all of those           1. The Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
     incurred subsequently.                                                     Treaty by not adopting a decision on the complaint lodged by
                                                                                Télévision Française 1 SA on 10 March 1993 concerning State
                                                                                aid.
(1) OJ C 64 of 2.3.1996.                                                   2. There is no need to adjudicate on the allegation that the
                                                                                Commission failed unduly to act under Articles 81 EC (ex
                                                                                Article 85) and 86 EC (ex Article 90).
                                                                           3. The action is inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the
                                                                                Commission’s failure to act under Article 82 EC (ex Article 86).
 ---pagebreak--- 18.9.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 265/7
4. There is no need to adjudicate on the alternative form of                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     annulment order sought.
5. The Commission shall bear its own costs together with those                                       of 17 June 1999
     incurred by the applicant, with the exception of the costs incurred
     by the applicant as a result of the intervention by the French          in Case T-82/96: Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar
     Republic.                                                               Portugueses (ARAP) and Others v Commission of the
                                                                                               European Communities (1)
6. The French Republic shall bear its own costs, together with the
     costs incurred by the applicant as a result of its intervention.
                                                                             (State aid — Complaints from competing undertakings —
                                                                             Judicial protection of complainants — Sugar — Aid granted
(1) OJ C 95 of 30.3.1996.                                                    in implementation of a general State aid scheme approved
                                                                             by the Commission — State aid for vocational training —
                                                                             State aid for co-financing under the rules on Structural
                                                                                                           Funds)
                                                                                                     (1999/C 265/12)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                               (Language of the case: English)
                           of 19 May 1999
                                                                             In Case T-82/96: Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar
in Joined Cases T-34/96 and T-163/96: Bernard Connolly                       Portugueses (ARAP), established in Lisbon, Alcântara Refinari-
                                                                             as — Açúcares SA, established in Santa Iria de Azóia, Portugal,
       v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA, established in
                                                                             Oporto, Portugal, represented by Gerard van der Wal, Advo-
(Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Removal from post                    caat with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad der
— Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations —                          Nederlanden, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Freedom of expression — Duty of an official to show good                     Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue v Commission of
faith and to exercise dignity in the performance of his duties)              the European Communities (Agents: Nicholas Khan, Anders
                                                                             Christian Jessen and James Flett), supported by Portuguese
                           (1999/C 265/11)                                   Republic (Agents Susana Brasil de Brito and Luis Inez Fernan-
                                                                             des), and DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-
                                                                             industrial SA, established in Monte da Barca, Portugal, rep-
                                                                             resented by Luis Sáragga Leal, Dulce Franco and Ricardo
                    (Language of the cases: French)                          Oliveira, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                             Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue
In Joined Cases T-34/96 and T-163/96: Bernard Connolly, a                    — application for annulment of the Commission decision of
former official of the Commission of the European Communi-                   11 January 1996 not to raise objections to State Aid N11/95
ties, residing in Everberg (Belgium), represented by Jacques                 in favour of DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-
Sambon and Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar,                   industrial SA and of the Commission’s letter to the applicants
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 of 19 March 1996 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim against Commission                   of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, R. Garcia-Valdecasas. V. Tiili,
of the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and                  P. Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for
Julian Currall) — application, in the first place, for annulment             the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 June 1999, in which
of the opinion of the Disciplinary Board of 7 December 1995                  it:
and of the Commission decision of 16 January 1996 removing
the applicant from his post, and, second, for compensation —
                                                                             1. Dismisses the application.
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 May 1999, the                    2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those
operative part of which is as follows:                                            of the defendant and the intervener DAI — Sociedade de
                                                                                  Desenvolvimento Agro-industriel SA.
1. Case T-34/96 is removed from the Register of the Court;
2. The application in Case T-163/96 is dismissed;                            3. Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs.
3. Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 233 of 10.8.1996.
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996 and OJ C 370 of 7.12.1996.