This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/117/52
Case T-96/07: Action brought on 23 March 2007 — Telecom Italia Media v Commission
Case T-96/07: Action brought on 23 March 2007 — Telecom Italia Media v Commission
Case T-96/07: Action brought on 23 March 2007 — Telecom Italia Media v Commission
OJ C 117, 26.5.2007, p. 32–33
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 117, 26.5.2007, p. 31–32
(MT)
26.5.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 117/32 |
Action brought on 23 March 2007 — Telecom Italia Media v Commission
(Case T-96/07)
(2007/C 117/52)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Telecom Italia Media S.p.A. (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Bassan and S. Venturini, avvocati)
Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
Forms of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the Commission's decision (C(2006) 6634 final) of 24 January 2007 relating to State aid C 52/2005 (ex NN88/2005, ex CP 101/2004), together with all prior, consequent and connected acts; |
— |
in the alternative, annul the Commission's decision (C(2006) 6634 final) in so far as it imposes on the Italian State a duty to recover the aid in accordance with the detailed rules set out therein; |
— |
in any case, order the Commission to pay the costs. With all consequences of law. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present application contests the Commission's decision finding that the State aid providing subsidies for the purchase of digital decoders, introduced by the Italian Government for the years 2004 and 2005, is unlawful. It is emphasised in that regard that, by decision of the same date, the subsidies planned for the year 2006 for the purchase of digital decoders with open APIs (application program interfaces) was found to be lawful pursuant to Article 87(c) of the EC Treaty.
According to the applicant, the difference between the lawful aid of the year 2006 and the unlawful aid of the years 2004 and 2005 lies in the fact that the latter expressly exclude financing for satellite TV decoders — which is thus excluded de iuris — whereas in the context of the 2006 aid it is excluded only de facto as a consequence of being the decoder chosen by the ‘closed ’SKY monopolistic platform.
In support of the forms of order sought, the applicant alleges:
— |
Error of assessment by the defendant. On that point it is argued that:
|
— |
Infringement and misapplication of Articles 87(1) and 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty in so far as the Commission has not shown that the measure distorts or threatens to distort competition, and accordingly constitutes State aid for the purposes of Article 87(1). Nor has the Commission shown how it can be possible that the exemption provided for in Article 87(3) applies to producers of decoders, but not also to television broadcasting networks, the latter being also, indirectly, beneficiaries which make use of those decoders. |
— |
Internal inconsistency and inherent irrationality of the contested decision. On that point, it is emphasised that in the view of the Commission the measure is selective, referring only to certain indirect beneficiaries (the television broadcasting networks) and not to others (the decoder producers). |