CELEX: C2000/355/69
Language: en
Date: 2000-12-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-300/00: Action brought on 18 September 2000 by SIC — Sociedade Independente de Comunicação S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

9.12.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 355/31
Action brought on 18 September 2000 by SIC — Socieda-                     The application makes the following claims:
de Independente de Comunicação S.A. against Com-
            mission of the European Communities
                                                                          A.    Breach of the obligation to provide a
                                                                                statement of reasons
                         (Case T-300/00)
                                                                                Article 253 of the Treaty lays down explicitly the duty
                         (2000/C 355/69)                                        to state the reasons on which are based binding
                                                                                measures adopted by Community institutions, in par-
                                                                                ticular by the Commission. However, according to the
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)                            applicant, the Commission did not fulfil, in the present
                                                                                case, its obligations with regard to the statement of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       reasons with respect to the EBU’s membership rules.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      According to the applicant, the Commission committed
European Communities on 18 September 2000 by SIC                                a manifest error and was inconsistent in its description
— Sociedade Independente de Comunicação S.A., whose                            of the facts. Indeed, the Court of First Instance took as
registered office is at Carnaxide, Linda-a-Velha (Portugal),                    proven, in its judgment in Case T-542/93 Métropole
represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz, whose chambers are at                      Télévision SA and Others v Commission, that the EBU
Av. Conselheiro Fernando de Sousa, n.o 19, 18.o, Lisbon, with                   membership rules were notified by that association to
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                         the Commission on 3 April 1989 and that the exemp-
Aloyse May, 398 Route d’Esch.                                                   tion, granted by the Commission by Decision
                                                                                93/403/EEC(1), covered the aforementioned rules.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     However, in the contested decision, in describing
                                                                                the notified agreements, the Commission makes no
—     annul Commission Decision 2000/400/EC of 10 May                           mention of the EBU’s rules, which include the member-
      2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of                   ship rules.
      the EC Treaty, adopted in Case IV/32.150 — Eurovision,
      published in OJ 2000 L 151, p. 18,                                  B.    Infringement of Article 81(1) of the
                                                                                EC Treaty
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
      ings.                                                                     In the applicant’s view, the Commission committed
                                                                                manifest errors concerning the irrelevance of the defi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 nition of the relevant market and the allegedly separate
                                                                                nature of the conditions for membership to the EBU
                                                                                with regard to the notified agreements.
The applicant is the holder, in Portugal, of a television
broadcasting licence to operate the third channel.
                                                                          C.    Infringement of Article 81(3) of the
Broadcasting in Portugal is carried out on a free-access basis                  EC Treaty
by three operators:
                                                                                The applicant claims that the Commission did not
—     a public-service operator, RTP — Radiotelevisão Portu-                   proceed to analyse the existence of restrictions of
      guesa, S.A., which holds a licence for the first and second               competition or to examine whether they were indis-
      channels and to whom the State awarded the public                         pensable neither so far as concern the conditions for
      service television concession;                                            membership to the EBU nor so far as concerns the
                                                                                exclusive nature of the broadcasting rights acquired by
—     two private operators, who obtained licences by tender,                   the cartel to which it granted the exemption. In its
      SIC — Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A.,                       view, the fact that the Commission chose to ignore the
      which operates the third channel, and TVI — Televisão                    restrictions on competition arising from the EBU
      Independente, S.A., which operates the fourth channel.                    membership rules and not analyse whether such restric-
                                                                                tions were indispensable, within the meaning of
                                                                                Article 81(3)(a) of the EC Treaty, amounts to an
Those three operators compete in the market for television
                                                                                infringement of the conditions for implementing that
advertising, since the income from that market, including
                                                                                provision. Furthermore, the exclusive nature of the
programme sponsorship, constitutes the only income for the
                                                                                broadcasting rights restricts competition, which the
two private operators.
                                                                                Commission completely ignored. Finally, the applicant
                                                                                is of the view that the granting of an exemption
RTP, in addition to the income from advertising and pro-                        under the terms of Article 81(1) implies a finding, in
gramme sponsorship, is in receipt of income awarded by the                      accordance with Article 81(3)(b), that the agreement in
State in respect of its provision of a public service.                          question does not afford the undertakings benefitting
                                                                                from the exemption the possibility of eliminating
SIC operates a general channel on an open signal, financed                      competition in respect of a substantial part of the
exclusively by income from advertising and programme spon-                      products in question. According to the applicant, the
sorship, offering a varied programme schedule intended to                       Commission wrongly considered that that condition
reach different types of viewers.                                               was fulfilled.
 ---pagebreak--- C 355/32               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9.12.2000
D.      Infringement of Articles 4(1) and 6(1)                         Action brought on 20 September 2000 by Groupe Fre-
        of Regulation No 17, together with                             maux and Palais Royal Inc. against the Council of the
        Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty                                 European Union and the Commission of the European
                                                                                                 Communities
        According to Article 4(1) of Regulation No 17, the
        exemption decisions provided for in Article 6(1) of                                    (Case T-301/00)
        that regulation may only be adopted in respect of
        agreements which have been notified. However, accord-
        ing to the applicant, the contested decision made the                                  (2000/C 355/70)
        exemption retrospective to a time prior to the last
        amendments made to the notified agreements, contrary
        to Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of Regulation No 17, together                           (Language of the case: French)
        with Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty.
                                                                       An action against the Council of the European Union and the
        It adds that the exemption was granted for an excess-
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities was brought
        ively long period and is unreasonable.
                                                                       before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                       on 20 September 2000 by Groupe Fremaux, established in
                                                                       Paris, and Palais Royal Inc., established in Charlottesville
E.      Infringement of Article 233 of the EC                          (United States of America), represented by Claude Lazarus and
        Treat: failure to comply with the judg-                        Florent Prunet, of the Paris Bar.
        ment of the Court of First Instance of
        11 July 1996
                                                                       The applicants claim that the Court should:
        The applicant claims that the essential purpose of the         —     order the Council of the European Union and the
        Commission, following the judgment of the Court of
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities to pay Grou-
        First Instance, was to avoid the legal consequences of               pe Fremaux the sum of EUR 241 705 in respect of losses
        that judgment.                                                       sustained, or to make good those losses, on the basis of
                                                                             Article 288 of the EC Treaty;
F.      Misuse of powers                                               —     order the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities to pay Palais
        Faced with the requirements of Article 233 of the                    Royal Inc. the sum of EUR 446 071 in respect of losses
        Treaty, so far as concerns compliance with the judg-                 sustained, or to make good those losses, on the basis of
        ment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 1996, the             Article 288 of the EC Treaty, and
        Commission used its powers under Regulation No 17
        not in order to ensure compliance with the judgment            —     order the Council of the European Union and the
        with regard to the assessment as to whether the                      Commission of the European Communities to pay the
        restriction of competition inherent in the EBU member-               costs.
        ship rules was indispensable but rather to circumvent
        and avoid the consequences of the judgment, by
        adopting a new exemption decision in which the matter
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
        which led to the annulment of Decision 93/403/EEC is
        put to one side and deliberately ignored.
                                                                       The applicant Groupe Fremaux specialises in producing cotton
                                                                       bedlinen of which a significant proportion is exported to the
G.      Breach of the principle of the separ-                          American market through the intermediary of its distribution
        ation of powers                                                subsidiary Palais Royal. In the context of the commercial
                                                                       dispute involving bananas between the European Union and
                                                                       the African, Caribbean and Pacific States on the one hand and
        The Commission’s conduct in the present case —                 the United States and other banana producers on the other,
        inasmuch as it took it upon itself, in the contested           the American authorities decided that, from 3 March 1999
        decision, to proceed to a review of the judgment of the        onwards, European undertakings exporting certain products
        Court of First Instance — constitutes a serious breach         to American territory, including those manufactured and
        of the principle of the separation of powers in relations      distributed by the applicants, would be required to raise a bank
        between the executive branch and the judicial branch           guarantee in the sum of 100 % of the value of the products
        of the Community.                                              exported.
(1) OJ 1994 L 179, p. 23.                                              The object of the present action is to obtain compensation for
                                                                       the losses which the applicants estimate that they have incurred
                                                                       as a result of the commercial sanctions imposed by the United
                                                                       States authorities.