Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62017TN0101

    Case T-101/17: Action brought on 15 February 2017 — Apple Distribution International v Commission

    OJ C 121, 18.4.2017, p. 39–40 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    15/02/2017
    Date lodged:
    15/02/2017
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    English
    Type of procedure:
    Action for annulment
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Case affecting:
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    18.4.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 121/39

    Action brought on 15 February 2017 — Apple Distribution International v Commission

    (Case T-101/17)

    (2017/C 121/58)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Apple Distribution International (Cork, Ireland) (represented by: S. Schwiddessen, H. Lutz, N. Niejahr, and A. Patsa, lawyers)

    Defendant: European Commission

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2042 of 1 September 2016;

    —

    order the European Commission to pay its own costs as well as the applicant’s costs in connection with these proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

    1.

    First plea in law, alleging a violation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive

    —

    First, the European Commission violated Articles 2(1), 2(2) and 3 of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive by finding that the country of origin principle does not apply to the film levy. Second, the European Commission violated Article 13(1) of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive by considering that this article allows Member States to impose financial contributions for the promotion of European works on video-on-demand providers who are established in other Member States.

    2.

    Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 110 TFEU

    —

    The European Commission violated Article 110 TFEU by finding that the application of the film levy to video-on-demand providers who are established in other Member States is not discriminatory.

    3.

    Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 56 TFEU

    —

    The European Commission failed to examine whether the application of the film levy to video-on-demand providers who are established in other Member States violates Article 56 TFEU

    4.

    Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Directive 98/34/EC

    —

    The European Commission failed to examine whether the application of the film levy to video-on-demand providers who are established in other Member States required notification under Directive 98/34/EC.
    Top