umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Short Reads

General Court dismisses Canal+ appeal against pay-TV commitment decision

General Court dismisses Canal+ appeal against pay-TV commitment decis

General Court dismisses Canal+ appeal against pay-TV commitment decision

04.01.2019 NL law

The General Court recently dismissed the appeal brought by Canal+ against the decision of the European Commission making the commitments of Paramount legally binding. In 2015, the Commission sent a Statement of Objections alleging that certain geo-blocking clauses in licensing agreements between film studios and pay-TV broadcasters had the object of restricting cross-border competition.

The Commission accepted commitments offered by Paramount not to enforce or implement these clauses to address the Commission's concerns. Canal+ appealed the Commission's decision making the commitments binding, arguing that cultural diversity and intellectual property rights justified the restriction of cross-border competition. The Court fully dismissed the appeal of Canal+ and upheld the commitment decision.

In 2014, the Commission started investigating geo-blocking clauses in licensing agreements between the largest European pay-TV broadcasters and six major film studios, including Paramount. In July 2015, the Commission sent a Statement of Objections alleging that these clauses, which prohibited broadcasters from showing its pay-TV content to EEA consumers outside the exclusive territory, were deemed to have the object of restricting cross-border competition. On 15 April 2016, Paramount proposed that it would not enforce or implement the relevant clauses in order to address the Commission's concerns about their anti-competitive object that is contrary to Article 101 (1) TFEU [see our May 2016 Newsletter].

After receiving comments on the commitments of Paramount from interested parties, including Canal+, the Commission decided to make the commitments legally binding in July 2016. Canal+, being the exclusive Paramount licensee in France and an interested third party in the case, challenged the commitment decision.

On appeal, Canal+ argued that the intellectual property rights justified the absolute territorial exclusivity conferred by the relevant clauses. The General Court held that, while intellectual property rights are intended to protect these rights, the relevant clauses imposed restrictions going beyond what was necessary. The General Court also rejected the argument of Canal+ that the relevant clauses promoted cultural production and diversity. According to the General Court, this would involve an assessment under Article 101 (3) TFEU, which fell outside the scope of a commitment decision. Lastly, Canal+ claimed that the commitments violated the interests and procedural rights of third parties. The General Court found that the commitments in no way prevented a national court from ruling on the validity of the relevant clauses following an action brought before that court.

The General Court therefore fully dismissed the appeal of Canal+ and upheld the commitment decision. On 20 December 2018, the Commission also published the commitments offered by Sky and the remaining film studios under investigation. The proposed commitments are similar to those offered by Paramount.

 

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of January 2019. Other articles in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more