Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 2 October 2008 - Stim v Commission

(Case T-451/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå (Stim) u.p.a. (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: C. Thomas, Solicitor and N. Pourbaix, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul Articles 3 and 4(2), and Article 4(3) to the extent that it refers to Article 3, of the Commission decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA in case COMP/C2/38.698 - CISAC;

Order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application the applicant seeks partial annulment of the Commission decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 - CISAC) and in particular, of its Article 3, determining that the EEA CISAC¹ members engaged in a concerted practice in violation of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA by coordinating the territorial delineations of the reciprocal representation mandates granted to one another in a way which limits a licence to the domestic territory of each collecting society.

In support of its claims the applicant submits the following:

According to the applicant the contested decision infringes Article 151(4) EC in that the Commission did not sufficiently take into account the consequences for cultural diversity in Europe in requiring termination of the alleged concerted practice on the territorial delineation of mandates granted by EEA collecting societies to other EEA collecting societies to issue licences of their repertoire for satellite, cable and internet use. Moreover, the applicant claims that the decision will harm cultural diversity in Europe, since authors of music of a less extensive cultural appeal will lose the certainty they have under the current system, that their music will be licensed and that revenues will be received in respect of all the territories in which their music may be performed.

The applicant further submits that the Commission should have taken into account the fact that the restriction of competition it identified is fictitious or, at most, marginal. In deed, in the applicant's submission, there is no restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC. Hence, the applicant claims that the Commission committed an error of law, or a manifest error of appreciation, when applying the aforementioned provision. Finally, the applicant contends that the Commission could have lawfully exempted the concerted practice pursuant to Article 81(3) EC. By not doing so, it needlessly caused harm to cultural diversity in Europe.

____________

¹ - International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers