Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 27 June 2005 by AEPI A.E. against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-242/05)

(Language of the case: Greek)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 June 2005 by Elliniki Etairia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias, a company established in Maroussi, Attica, represented by T. Asprogerakas-Grivas, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

-    annul the contested measures;

-    entertain and hear the original complaint as to its substance;

-    uphold the applicant's original complaint in its entirety;

-    order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the fees of the applicant's lawyer.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, which is a company for the collective management of musical intellectual-property rights in Greece, lodged a complaint with the European Commission referring to Article 226 EC, seeking a finding that the Greek Minister for Culture had infringed the competition rules (Article 81 EC) by the creation, as pleaded, of monopolistic situations on the grant of licences to bodies engaging in the collective management of intellectual-property rights and related rights.

By letter dated 7 December 2004 under reference COMP/C2/PK/pm/D/906((2004), the Commission informed the applicant that it proposed to take no further action on the matter, while inviting the applicant to inform it of any new matters which could prove that there was an infringement. By a subsequent letter dated 20 April 2005 under reference Comp/C2/PK/LVP/D/219/2005, the Commission informed the applicant that it was definitively rejecting its complaint.

The applicant seeks the annulment of those decisions. It contends first of all that there is a complete lack of reasons for the decision of 20 April 2005 which, in its submission, took no account whatsoever of the new matters relied upon by it in answer to the letter of 7 December 2004. It further submits that the Greek Minister of Culture discriminated against it since it granted all the other collective-management bodies a licence in respect of all the fields requested, while in the case of the applicant it granted a licence only for intellectual property-rights, and not for related rights too as the applicant had requested. The applicant submits that that was done intentionally in order to create monopolistic situations. The applicant also pleads breach of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality since, in its view, holders of related rights who are not Greek cannot choose in Greece whichever company they want and entrust it with management of their related rights. Finally, the applicant considers that the practice of which it complained concerns a large part of the intellectual-property market, and not a limited part - the view taken in the contested measures.

____________