Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 22 November 2002 by Cableuropa, S.A., Región de Murcia de Cable, S.A., Valencia de Cable, S.A., Mediterránea Sur Sistemas de Cable, S.A., y Mediterránea Norte Sistemas de Cable, S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

    (Case T-346/02)

    (Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 November 2002 by Cableuropa, S.A. (having its registered office in Aravaca, Madrid), Región de Murcia de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in Murcia, Spain), Valencia de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in Madrid), Mediterránea sur Sistemas de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in Alicante, Spain) y Mediterránea Norte Sistemas de Cable, S.A. (having its registered office in Castellón, Spain), represented by Luis Felipe Castresana Sánchez and Gonzalo Samaniego Bordiu, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

(annul the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2002 referring Case COMP/M.2845 - Sogecable/Canalsatélite Digital/Vía Digital to the competent authorities in the Kingdom of Spain pursuant to Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89;

(order the parties to bear their own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested by the present application concerns the notification, pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, ¹ of a planned concentration by which Sogecable SA, controlled by Promotora de Informaciones S.A (Prisa) and Groupe Canal +S.A., the latter belonging to the Vivendi Universal group, signs an agreement with the Admira Media S.A. group, belonging to the Telefónica S.A group, with the aim of merging Sogecable and DTS Distribuidora de Televisión Digital S.A. (Vía Digital), controlled by Admira, by means of an exchange of shares. According to the notification, following the successful completion of the abovementioned operation, the resulting undertaking would come under the joint control of Prisa and Groupe Canal+.

In support of its arguments, the applicants allege:

(lack of competence of the Commission, in that it is not empowered to refer a case to the authorities of a Member State when the markets concerned affect intra-Community trade and more than one Member State.

(infringement of Article 9 of the abovementioned regulation on concentrations in that the contested decision makes a "blank" reference to the national authorities.

(failure to observe the obligation to provide reasons, specifically as regards the exceptional nature of the reference in cases in which the markets in question affect a substantial part of the common market.

____________

¹ - (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1