Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2005/006/91

Case T-464/04: Action brought on 3 December 2004 by Impala against the Commission of the European Communities

OJ C 6, 8.1.2005, p. 46–47 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

8.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/46


Action brought on 3 December 2004 by Impala against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-464/04)

(2005/C 6/91)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 3 December 2004 by Impala, Brussels (Belgium), represented by S. Crosby and J.Golding, Solicitors.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the Commission's decision of 19 July 2004 in case no. COMP/M.3333 — Sony/BMG in its entirety;

In the alternative, annul the contested decision insofar as it relates to either or all of the following:

collective dominance on the market for licences for online music;

single dominance in the markets for distribution of online music;

coordination of the parties' respective music publishing businesses;

Order the Commission to bear the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an international association with the purpose of promoting the general interests of its members, which are independent music companies. It requests the annulment of the Commission's decision approving the merger between the global recorded music businesses of Bertelsmann AG and Sony Corporation of America.

In support of its application it submits that in authorising the merger the Commission violated Article 253 EC, Article 81 paragraph 1 EC, Regulation 4064/89 (1) as well as the rules of law governing their application and committed manifest errors of assessment:

by finding that a collective dominant position did not exist in the market for recorded music prior to the merger;

by finding that the merger did not strengthen an existing collective dominant position in that market;

by finding that the merger would not create a collective dominant position in the market for recorded music, in the market for licences for online music or in the market for the distribution of online music;

by finding that the merger would not lead to the coordination of the parties' respective music publishing businesses.


(1)  OJ L 395, p. 1


Top