You are on page 1of 1

C 156/8 EN Official Journal of the European Union 12.6.

2004

The Appellants claim that the Court should: the directive, namely the agglomerations having an ‘EH’
(habitat equivalent) higher than 10 000 units which discharge
their water into recipient waters considered to be sensitive
1) set aside the order; areas.

2) grant the relief sought by the Appellants in the form of the


draft order annexed to the Application; alternatively (1) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21.05.1991 concerning urban
waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135 of 30.05.1991, p. 40)
3) remit the case to the Court of First Instance; and in any
event

4) order the Defendants to pay the Appellants' costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Appellants contend that the Court of First Instance erred in Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de cassa-
law when it found that, as regards the Defendants' allegedly tion (France), 1ère chambre civile, by order of that court
unlawful conduct, they (the Applicants) did not specify the of 17 February 2004, in the case of Société Lagardère
primary rule of law which the Defendants are alleged to have Active Broadcast, as assignee from Europe 1 communica-
broken or infringed. The Appellants submit that the Defen- tion SA, against Société pour la perception de la rému-
dants' failure was set out clearly in their application. nération équitable (SPRE) and Gesellschaft zur Verwer-
tung von Leisungsschutzrechten MBG, SARL (GVL), inter-
vener: Compagnie européenne de radiodiffusion et de télé-
vision Europe 1 SA (CERT)

(Case C-192/04)

(2004/C 156/17)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-


Action brought on 26 April 2004 against the French pean Communities by order of the Cour de cassation (France),
Republic by the Commission of the European 1ère chambre civile, of 17 February 2004, received at the
Communities Court Registry on 26 April 2004, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Société Lagardère Active Broadcast, as assignee
from Europe 1 communication SA, against Société pour la
(Case C-191/04) perception de la rémunération équitable (SPRE) and Gesellschaft
zur Verwertung von Leisungsschutzrechten MBG, SARL (GVL),
intervener: Compagnie européenne de radiodiffusion et de télé-
(2004/C 156/16) vision Europe 1 SA (CERT), on the following questions:

An action was brought before the Court of Justice of the Euro- 1. Where a broadcasting company transmitting from the terri-
pean Communities on 26 April 2004 by the Commission of tory of one Member State uses, in order to extend the trans-
the European Communities, represented by A. Bordes and G. mission of its programmes to a part of its national audience,
Valero Jordana, acting as Agents, with an address for service in a transmitter situated nearby on the territory of another
Luxembourg, against the French Republic. Member State, of which its majority-held subsidiary is the
licence holder, does the legislation of the latter State govern
the single equitable fee which is required by Article 8(2) of
The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 (1) and Article
Court should: 4 of Directive 93/83 of 27 September 1993 (2) and payable
in respect of the phonograms published for commercial
purposes included in the programmes retransmitted?
1. Declare that, by not providing the information to be
collected by 31 December 1999 by the competent authori- 2. If so, is the original broadcasting company entitled to
ties or the appropriate bodies as part of the monitoring of deduct the sums paid by its subsidiary from the fee claimed
waste discharges and sludges introduced by Article 15 of from it in respect of all the transmissions received on the
Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1), with respect to the national territory?
agglomerations concerned by the 31 December 1998 time-
limit, within six months of the Commission's request of 18
December 2000, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
(1) Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental
obligations under Article 15(4) of that directive. right and lending right and on certain rights relating to copyright in
the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61).
2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs. (2) Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the co-ordi-
nation of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to
copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmis-
The French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligation to provide sion (OJ 1993 L 248, p. 15).
the Commission with the information pertaining to the moni-
toring situation as at 31 December 1999 for the water of the
agglomerations concerned by an initial time-limit laid down in