CELEX: C2001/134/54
Language: en
Date: 2001-05-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-33/01: Action brought on 12 February 2001 by Kirch Media GmbH & Co KgaA and Kirchmedia WM AG against the Commission of the European Communities

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,
 ---pagebreak--- 5.5.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 134/25
—     the principle of equality by applying measures to the             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      applicants that discriminate, without justification,
      between holders of rights who are broadcasters and
      holders who are not,                                              —      declare that the Commission has failed to fulfil its
                                                                               obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt any
—     Article 3(a)2 of the Directive                                           decision whatever regarding the complaint made by the
                                                                               applicant on 23 February 1999, relating to the State aid
      —    by concluding that the UK measures are compatible                   granted by the Spanish authorities to Banco Español de
           with Community law as regards the procedures                        Crédito SA; and
           adopted by the UK in drawing up and consulting on
           the UK measures.
                                                                        —      order the defendant to pay all the costs.
      —    by concluding that the UK measures are compatible
           with Community law, in that the measures infringe
           general principles of Community Law, Articles 43
           and 48 EC, the principle of free competition within
           the internal market, discrimination on grounds of
           nationality and infringement of the right to freedom         Pleas in law and main arguments
           of expression,
      —    by excluding from its assessment of the UK measures
           the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1996 (sec-            The applicant states that, on 23 February 1999, he lodged a
           tions 99 and 100) relating to the prohibition of             complaint with the Competition Commissioner, claiming that
           exclusivity and of mandatory licensing provisions.           a number of financial measures had been adopted by the
                                                                        Spanish authorities in favour of Banco Español de Crédito and
The applicants further submit that Article 3(a) of the Directive        Banco de Santander, which in his view amounted to State aid.
is inapplicable under Article 241 EC as was introduced by               Such aid, despite having been granted in 1994, was not fully
means of an unlawful legislative procedure and has no legal             analysed by the Commission at the time.
basis.
Finally, the applicants submit that, in adopting the contested
                                                                        That complaint was followed by the submission of a number
decision, the Commission infringed essential procedural safe-
                                                                        of documents and even a meeting between the applicant and
guards by failing to adopt it in accordance with its internal
                                                                        the relevant Commission services. Despite all the information
rules of procedure and by failing in its duty to state reasons
                                                                        and documents provide by the applicant in relation to
under Article 253 EC.
                                                                        the measures complained of, those services took no action
                                                                        whatsoever vis-à-vis the Spanish authorities. On 6 November
(1) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23.                                        2000, the applicant, taking the view that, despite the com-
                                                                        plexity of the case, the Commission had had more than a
                                                                        reasonable period in which to adopt a position with regard to
                                                                        the complaint made more than two years previously, lodged a
                                                                        document formally requesting that a decision be adopted by
                                                                        the Commission. Since that request, the period prescribed by
                                                                        Article 232 EC has more than expired without the Commission
                                                                        having defined its position.
Action brought on 23 February 2001 by Rafael Pérez
Escolar against Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties                                     The applicant claims that the Commission was under an
                                                                        obligation to adopt a decision on the complaint either
                          (Case T-41/01)                                declaring that the measures complained of do not constitute
                                                                        State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC or that they
                                                                        must be characterised as such but are compatible with the
                         (2001/C 134/55)                                common market, or by initiating the formal investigation
                                                                        procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC. The applicant
                                                                        takes the view, accordingly, that the Commission has failed to
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 February 2001 by Rafael Pérez
Escolar, residing in Madrid, represented by Fernando Moreno
Pardo.