CELEX: C1996/095/34
Language: en
Date: 1996-03-30 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 2 February 1996 by Télévision Française 1 against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-17/96)

30 . 3 . 96             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 95/ 17
foreign subsidiaries with a view to preventing them from             In the alternative, the Court should :
agreeing to sell vehicles to French intermediaries, and,
second, to the request for action which it sent to the               — annul the position adopted by the Commission on
Commission on 27 September 1995 .                                         11 December 1995 in so far as it may be deemed a
                                                                         decision for the purposes of Article 189 of the EC
The applicant pleads that it has been the subject of a judicial          Treaty .
offensive on the part of Auto Cite for alleged unfair                In any event, the Court should :
competition, the ultimate aim of which was to prevent it
from carrying on its business as an agent.                           — order the Commission to pay the costs in their
                                                                         entirety .
According to the applicant, a further stratagem has been
established at national level and employed at local level by         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the Peugeot concessionaire with a view to preventing
parallel imports, consisting in private inquiries in the form        The applicant relates that, on 10 March 1993 , it submitted
of affidavits made by process-servers with a view to                 to the Commission a complaint against the French State
obtaining information on Europe Auto's customers and                 concerning the methods of financing and operating the
sources of supply.                                                   French public television broadcasting channels, France 2
                                                                     and France 3 ( France-Television ). That complaint was based
Lastly, according to the applicant, those restrictive practices      on the infringement by the French State of Articles 85 , 90 ( 1 )
are recurring at the level of the Member States, in which            and 92 of the EC Treaty . On 15 July 1995 , after conducting
French agents tend to obtain their supplies, by the exertion         an investigation for more than two years, the Commission
of pressure and the imposition of prohibitions on local              informed the applicant that it had decided to arrange for a
distributors of Peugeot vehicles, on threat of the loss of their     study to be undertaken concerning the general question of
dealership .                                                         the financing of public television broadcasting in the
                                                                     Member States . On 3 October 1995 the applicant sent a
According to the applicant, the Commission's failure to act          letter of formal notice calling upon the Commission to act.
also gives rise to non-contractual liability on its part.            By letter of 11 December 1995 , the Director-General for
                                                                     Competition informed the applicant that, following the
                                                                     results of the study, a letter had been sent to the French
                                                                     authorities and that, depending on the response to that
                                                                     letter, the Commission would be able to adopt a decision as
                                                                     to what action to take with regard to the complaint.
Action brought on 2 February 1996 by Television                      The applicant points out that, despite the letter of formal
Frangaise 1 against the Commission of the European                   notice, the Commission failed to reply — and, accordingly,
                           Communities                               failed to take steps — within the two-month period
                                                                     provided for in the second paragraph of Article 175 of the
                         ( Case T-17/96 )                            EC Treaty and that it had therefore failed to act, within the
                           ( 96/C 95/34 )                            meaning of Article 175 .
                                                                     As regards France-Television 's infringement of Article 85 of
                  (Language of the case: French)                     the Treaty, the Commission was under a duty to send the
                                                                     applicant the communication provided for in Article 6 of
An action against the Commission of the European                     Regulation No 99/63 , which it failed to do . As regards the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    part of the complaint concerning the infringement of
Instance of the European Communities on 2 February 1996              Articles 90 ( 1 ) and 92 of the Treaty, the Commission was
by Television Fran^aise 1 , whose registered office is in Paris,     likewise under a duty not to let matters rest at the
represented by Georges Vandersanden, Jean-Paul Hordies               preliminary stage described in Article 93 ( 3 ), but to initiate
and Agnes Maqua , of the Brussels Bar, with an adress for            the procedure under Article 93 ( 2 ), which it failed to do .
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
SARL, 1 Rue Glesener.                                                Alternatively, in the event that the Commission's reply of
                                                                     11 December 1995 is deemed to constitute an express
                                                                     decision in response to the complaint, the applicant argues
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         that that decision should be declared unlawful on the
                                                                     ground that it fails to state that France 2 and France 3
— declare that the Commission, by not adopting a position            infringed, on the one hand, Article 85 and, on the other,
     within two months of the applicant's letter of formal           Articles 90 ( 1 ) and 92 , and thereby acted contrary to the
     notice of 3 October 1995 , failed to act,                       principle of equal treatment (a breach of the principle of
                                                                     contrary to the principle of equal treatment (a breach of the
— declare that, by thus failing to act, the Commission failed        principle of non-discrimination ) of private and public
     to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty,                     broadcasting channels, whose task of providing television
                                                                     broadcasting services is in this case the same, and which
— call upon the Commission to act, by adopting a decision            should benefit from identical conditions of competition .
     with regard to the complaint lodged by the applicant on
     10 March 1993 .