Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 29 September 2008 - IMRO v Commission

(Case T-415/08)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Irish Music Rights Organisation Ltd (The) - Eagras um Chearta Cheolta (IMRO) (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer and D. Collins, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Annul Article 3 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

Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application the applicant seeks partial annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of Commission Decision C(2008)3435 final of 16 July 2008 (Case COMP/C2/38.698 - CISAC) relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA. Precisely, the applicant contests the Commission findings in Article 3 of the contested decision stating that territorial delineations of the reciprocal representation mandates granted by the authors' society to another constitute a concerted practice in violation of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA.

The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its claims.

First, the applicant submits that the Commission committed an error of assessment, infringed the Article 81 EC and violated its obligation to state reasons foreseen by Article 253 EC by deciding that the parallel territorial delineation included in the reciprocal representation agreements concluded by the applicant and the other CISAC members is the result of a concerted practice. It claims that the level of evidence put forward by the Commission in the decision is insufficient to establish that the parallel conduct is not the result of normal competitive condition but constitutes such a concerted practice. The applicant further states that the presence of the delineation clause in all of its reciprocal agreements is justified by the interest of its members.

Second, in the alternative, the applicant argues that, contrary to the findings of the contested decision, the territorial delineation by CISAC societies in their reciprocal representation agreements is not restrictive of competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC because it concerns a form of competition that is not worthy of protection. Nevertheless, to the extent that the alleged concerted practice on territorial delineations should be considered to restrict competition, the applicant claims that it cannot be considered illegal or infringing Article 81(1) EC because it is necessary and proportionate to the legitimate objective of protecting the rights of the societies' members and the authors.

____________