CELEX: C1999/333/75
Language: en
Date: 1999-11-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-206/99: Action brought on 15 September 1999 by Métropole Télévision (M6) against the Commission of the European Communities

20.11.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 333/33
The applicant points out that, whereas the Council invoked                and Dirk Ehle, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs Ehle & Schiller,
systematically, for each document, Article 4(1) of its Decision           Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
93/731/EC (‘the Decision’), the Commission referred to the                Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 Rue Michel Welter.
Decision and indicated that the documents requested could
undermine the position of the EU in current and future                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
negotiations with Russia and could not, therefore, be made
available to the applicant.                                               1. annul the Commission’s decision of 5 February 1999
                                                                               (REM: 14/98);
In support of its claims, the applicant submits that:                     2. order the Commission to pay the costs.
— it is necessary to analyse and consider the relevance and
     weight of the denials in question in the light of the overall        Pleas in law and main arguments
     transparency aimed at by the Decision;
                                                                          The applicant’s pleas in law and main arguments are similar to
— the exception relating to international relations must                  those in Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97, T-191/97,
     be interpreted restrictively and applied carefully on a              T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97, T-216/97, T-217/97,
     case-by-case basis;                                                  T-218/97 (1), T-279/97 (2), T-280/97 (2), T-293/97 (3) and
                                                                          T-147/99 (4).
— in the present case the Council and the Commission are
     using what they consider to be part of their discretionary           (1) See, as regards all these cases, OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997, pp. 17 to
     authority to deny all rights to access to the requested                  25.
     documentation;                                                       (2) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997, p. 24.
                                                                          (3) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998, p. 24.
                                                                          (4) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999, p. 41.
— agendas of meetings held in 1998, possibly without critical
     annotations, are mere lists of tractanda which are usually
     made available to the press in connection with meetings,
     so that it is hardly conceivable that the release of such
     agendas, after the lapse of a year, could constitute a
     dangerous or prejudicial measure liable to have an adverse
     effect on the international relations of the European Union;         Action brought on 15 September 1999 by Métropole
                                                                          Télévision (M6) against the Commission of the European
— it is a fundamental principle of Community law that                                                  Communities
     citizens of the European Union should be granted the
     widest and fullest possible access to documents of the                                          (Case T-206/99)
     institutions of the European Union;
                                                                                                     (1999/C 333/75)
— in the present case, not only is the public interest at stake,
     but also the private interest of the applicant who needs to
                                                                                               (Language of the case: French)
     be able to defend before the Finnish courts his case that
     the contents of the requested documents do not have the
     highly confidential nature that is currently alleged by the          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     Council and the Commission.                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
                                                                          15 September 1999 by Métropole Télévision (M6), having its
                                                                          registered office in Neuilly-sur-Seine (France), represented by
                                                                          Didier Théophile, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service
                                                                          in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
                                                                          — annul the Commission’s decision of 29 June 1999;
Action brought on 15 September 1999 by HYPER S.r.l.                       — order the Commission to pay all the costs.
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case T-205/99)
                                                                          The applicant contests the Commission’s decision of 29 June
                          (1999/C 333/74)                                 1999 rejecting the complaint submitted by it against the
                                                                          European Broadcasting Union (EBU), concerning an alleged
                                                                          infringement by the EBU of Article 81(1) EC by virtue of its
                   (Language of the Case: German)                         refusal to accept the applicant’s application for membership
                                                                          of that organisation. That decision forms part of the aftermath
                                                                          to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 1996
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 in Joined Cases T-528/93, T-542/93, T-543/93 and T-546/93
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Métropole Télévision and Others v Commission [1996] ECR
European Communities on 15 September 1999 by HYPER                        II-649, in which the Court of First Instance annulled a decision
S.r.l., of Limena (Italien Republic), represented by Dietrich Ehle        exempting the EBU’s internal provisions and other regulations
 ---pagebreak--- C 333/34                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.11.1999
concerning the acquisition of television rights to sports events          The applicant claims that the Court should annul Decision
within the framework of Eurovision and contractual access to              C(1999) 1501 adopted by the Commission of the European
such programmes for third parties. According to the applicant,            Communities on 18 June 1999.
it is precisely on account of the persistent desire manifested by
the EBU, in the absence of the exemption previously enjoyed
by it, to deprive the applicant of the benefit of the rights held         Pleas in law and main arguments
by it by invoking, in opposition to its membership application,
criteria in its Statutes which contravene Article 81(1) EC, that          In the present proceedings, the applicant association contests
the applicant decided to refer the matter to the Commission.              Commission Decision C(1999) 1501 of 4 June 1999 in so far
                                                                          as it cancers the assistance granted to it, at the material time,
                                                                          by Commission Decision C(93) 3393 of 26 November 1993,
In support of its claims, the applicant maintains that:
                                                                          as amended by Decision C(96) 1603 of 18 July 1996,
— its complaint was based not on the EBU’s refusal to admit               concerning aid granted by the EAGGF Guidance Section
     it to membership but on the persistent attempts by the               pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 in connec-
     EBU to oppose its membership application by invoking                 tion with Project No 93.ES.06.028, entitled ‘Pilot project
                                                                          demonstrating innovative systems for improving the quality
     the anti-competitive criteria contained in its Statutes as a
                                                                          of fruit production in the Jalón Medio region (Zaragoza,
      ground for refusing to sell to it the rights held by it;
                                                                          Aragon, Spain) and adapting it to the market’.
— contrary to the Commission’s assertions, the Court of First
      Instance ruled in its aforementioned judgment on the                In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the
      applicability of Article 81(1) of the Treaty to the rules           following arguments:
      governing admission to membership of the EBU, stating
                                                                          — Breach of the guarantees laid down in relation to proceed-
      that those rules to some extent distort competition vis-à-vis
                                                                               ings involving the hearing of both parties which may lead
      purely commercial charnels which are not admitted as
                                                                               to the imposition of a penalty. It maintains in that regard,
      members;
                                                                               first, that the contested decision does not indicate the
— whilst it is true that the Commission is not obliged to                      forum before which appeal proceedings may be brought,
      express a view on every argument contained in the                        nor whether that forum is a judicial body, nor the
      complaint, it has committed an error of assessment                       time-limit prescribed for bringing such an appeal. Second,
      rendering its decision liable to be annulled, by failing to              it asserts that the defendant institution has failed to adhere
      rule on the discrimination suffered by M6 as a result of the             to the principle that an investigation must be carried out,
      participation of CANAL + in the Eurovision system up                     and a decision reached, within a reasonable time;
      until the 1998 World Cup and the latter’s having been a             — Breach of the principles underlying the common agricul-
      member of the EBU despite never having fulfilled the                     tural policy, particularly as regards technological research
      criteria for admission to membership;                                    and development in that field and the necessary increase
                                                                               in productivity;
— in the present case, the Commission exercised its decision-
      making powers in competition matters not in order to                — Infringement of Articles 15(2), 23(2) and 24 of Council
      ensure that the competition rules were observed in the                   Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 con-
      market for the acquisition of rights to sports events but                cerning the Structural Funds of the Community. It main-
      solely in order to make sure that the complaint in question              tains in that regard that, inasmuch as the decision approv-
      was rejected.                                                            ing the project submitted by the applicant does not
                                                                               expressly prohibit the same, it must be assumed that
                                                                               expenditure incurred in preparing the project and
                                                                               obtaining the assistance are payable in addition to the
                                                                               amount of the aid itself. Second, it argues that no
                                                                               on-the-spot checks of any kind whatever, including sample
                                                                               checks, were carried out in relation to the applicant, as
Action brought on 15 September 1999 by the Asociación                         provided for in the aforesaid Article 23(2). Finally, and
de Fruticultores del Jalón Medio against the Commission                       without any admission by the applicant that it has
                   of the European Communities                                 perpetrated any irregular act of any kind whatsoever, the
                                                                               applicant is unable to understand why the Commission
                                                                               has not reduced the aid by the amount allegedly unused.
                           (Case T-207/99)
                                                                          — Disregard of the spirit and purpose of Council Regulation
                           (1999/C 333/76)                                     (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988 concerning
                                                                               the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund,
                                                                               inasmuch as the provisions contained in the final recital in
                    (Language of the Case: Spanish)                            the preamble thereto and the measures provided for in
                                                                               Article 2(2) thereof have been curtailed by the adoption of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      the rigorous measure involving the cancellation of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     EAGGF assistance previously granted.
European Communities on 15 September 1999 by the Asocia-
ción de Fruticultores del Jalón Medio, established at La Almunia        The applicant also criticises the fact that the contested decision
de Doña Godina, represented by Javier Mirón Martı́nez and               contains an inadequate statement of reasons.
David Esteban Arregui, of the Zaragoza Bar, with an address
for service at 4 Calle Bolonia, Zaragoza.