CELEX: C2000/316/68
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-233/00: Action brought on 6 September 2000 by Scanbox Entertainment A/S against the Commission of the European Communities

C 316/36              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.11.2000
Pleas in law relied on:       Incorrect     interpretation     of      —    the applicant is the only person capable of being regarded
                              Rule 18(2) of Commission Regu-                as distributor of the film works in question;
                              lation implementing Council
                              Regulation No. 40/94 (1) —               —    the applicant holds the exclusive distribution rights for
                              opponent’s obligation to provide              the relevant territories with regard to the films in question;
                              translations into the language of
                              the opposition proceedings of the
                              evidence in support of the oppo-         —    the applicant has contractually acquired the exclusive
                              sition.                                       distribution rights over the film works in question;
                                                                       —    under contracts with the film production companies, the
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995               applicant is required to pay a fixed amount for acquisition
    implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Com-               of the exclusive distribution rights. This amount is
    munity trade mark (OJ L 303, p. 1).                                     independent of utilisation and commercial financial profit
                                                                            in the event of success or failure;
                                                                       —    the applicant is the only person to take decisions
                                                                            concerning release of individual films within the terri-
                                                                            tories concerned;
                                                                       —    the applicant is the only person who bears responsibility
Action brought on 6 September 2000 by Scanbox Enter-                        for, undertakes and implements any commercial activity
tainment A/S against the Commission of the European                         concerning marketing for the public;
                         Communities
                                                                       —    the applicant is the only person bearing financial
                        (Case T-233/00)                                     responsibility for release and distribution;
                        (2000/C 316/68)                                —    the applicant bears full legal responsibility for distribution
                                                                            of the films in question within the individual territories;
                  (Language of the case: Danish)                       —    for Norway and Sweden, the applicant has entered into
                                                                            an agreement with AB Svensk Filmindustri, pursuant to
                                                                            which AB Svensk Filmindustri has undertaken solely to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   ensure practical delivery and handling of individual copies
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  of film works to cinemas;
European Communities on 6 September 2000 by Scanbox
Entertainment A/S, Farum (Denmark), represented by Torben
Steffensen, of Dragsted Schlüter Aros, Copenhagen.                     —    it follows expressly from section 2.4 on film distributors
                                                                            in ‘Guidelines for the submission of proposals to obtain
                                                                            financial support’ that sub-distributors contracted by
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 distributors do not fall within that category;
—     require the Commission to recognise Scanbox Entertain-           —    AB Svensk Filmindustri, which cannot even be regarded
      ment A/S as distributor and consequently as lawful                    as a sub-distributor, is not entitled to any portion of the
      recipient of the financial allocation under Media II —                financial allocation for the films in question;
      Development and Distribution (1996-2000), Call for
      Proposals 8/2000;
                                                                       —    AB Svensk Filmindustri has no legal or financial responsi-
                                                                            bility, and bears no risk, in its practical handling and
—     declare the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2000                     delivery of the applicant’s copies of the film works in
      invalid.
                                                                            question;
                                                                       —    AB Svensk Filmindustri has no independent competence
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            or decision-making power in relation to setting of the
                                                                            budget, date of release, marketing and promotional
This case concerns the issue of who can be regarded as                      activities etc.
distributor and thus entitled to receive a financial allocation
under Call for Proposals 8/2000 on the basis of the Council
decision of 10 July 1995 on the implementation of a pro-               (1) OJ 1995 L 321, p. 25.
gramme encouraging the development and distribution of
European audiovisual works (Media II — Development and
Distribution (1996-2000)) (1). The applicant puts forward the
following pleas in support of its submissions: