Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 6 December 2001 by SIC ( Sociedade Independente de Comunicação S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-297/01)

    (Language of the case: Portuguese)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 December 2001 by SIC ( Sociedade Independente de Comunicação S.A., whose registered office is at Carnaxide, Linda-a-Velha (Portugal), represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(find the action admissible;

(order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a commercial company whose sole object is the pursuit of television broadcasting activities.

On 30 July 1993, the applicant lodged with Directorate General for Competition - DG IV of the Commission ( a complaint against the Portuguese Republic and RTP ( Radiotelevisão Portuguesa, alleging breach of Community rules on competition, in particular of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty.

The complaint concerned a number of measures adopted by the Portuguese Government in favour of RTP, a public operator holding the public service television concession, taking the view that such measure constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty and that such aid had been granted contrary to Article 88(3) of the Treaty.

More than 2 years after the complaint was lodged, and despite various approaches by SIC, SIC found that the Commission had failed to adopt a position on the complaint.

In view of the inactivity of the Community institution, the applicant, in accordance with Article 232 of the EC Treaty, in August 1995 requested the Commission to adopt a position on the complaint, in particular with regard to the request that it initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission requested additional information of the Portuguese authorities.

Disappointed with that request, which it considered to be merely interlocutory in nature, and in view of the Commission's failure to act, SIC brought an action for failure to act under Article 232 of the EC Treaty (Case T-231/95).

Following the adoption by the Commission of the decision of 7 November 1996 on the financing from public funds granted to RTP, the action for failure to act was emptied of purpose and the the applicant abandoned the action.

Meanwhile, on 22 October 1996 SIC lodged a fresh complaint with the Commission against the Portuguese Republic claiming infringement of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty in respect of the manner in which the concession for public service television was granted.

The second complaint was, in essence, based on the same legal grounds as the first.

On 6 October 1997 the applicant received a copy of the abovementioned decision of the Commission of 7 November 1996 addressed to the Portuguese Republic concerning the financing of public television channels in which the Commission took the view that the measures referred to did not amount to State aid granted by the Portuguese State to RTP and were therefore not covered by the Treaty State aid rules.

By application of 3 March 1997 SIC brought an action for annulment of that decision (Case T-46/97).

In the judgment delivered on 10 May 2000, the Court of First Instance held that the Commission was under a duty to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of a number of financial measures adopted by the Portuguese State vis-à-vis RTP.

By letter of 3 January 2001, SIC asked the Commission what measures it intended to adopt in order to comply with the judgment.

In the absence of any reply from the Commission, the applicant, by letter of 26 July 2001, called upon it to take action in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 232.

After the expiry of the period of two months prescribed by the Treaty, the Commission had not initiated the procedure nor responded to the call to take action.

In early November 2001, after the abovementioned two-month period had expired, the applicant received a letter from the Commission informing it that the internal preparatory work for compliance with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of May 2000 was almost complete.

The applicant takes the view that that letter is a merely provisional step which does not define the position of the defendant institution.

____________