You are on page 1of 1

26.9.

98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 299/21

directives for their implementation. In the present case, when the time limits expired, the Italian Republic had not adopted the measures necessary to comply with the Directives named in the Commission's application.
(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52. (2) OJ L 49, 28.2.1996, p. 29.

the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 July 1998 by Metsä-Serla OYJ and Others, represented by Hans Hellmann, Am Morsdorfer Hof 16, D-50933 Cologne, and Hans-Joachim Hellmann LL.M., Schilling, Zutt & Anschütz, Otto-Beck Straûe 42, D-68165 Mannheim, Rechtsanwälte, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe, B.P. 1107, L-1011 Luxembourg. The appellants claim that the Court should:

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 5, Oviedo, by order of that Court of 1 June 1998 in the Case of Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) v. Hostelería Asturiana, SA (HOASA) (Case C-293/98) (98/C 299/32) Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by an order of the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción (Court of First Instance) No 5, Oviedo, of 1 June 1998, which was received at the Court Registry on 29 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the Case of Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) v. Hostelería Asturiana, SA (HOASA), on the following question. Must Article 1(2)(a) and (3) of Directive 93/83/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the reception by a hotel establishment of satellite or terrestrial television signals and their retransmission by cable to the various rooms of the hotel is an act of communication to the public' or reception by the public'?
(1) OJ L 248, 6.10.1993, p. 15.

1. declare void, in so far as it concerns the appellants, the Commission Decision of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C 33.833 Ð Cartonboard), notified to the appellants on 8 August 1994 and published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 19 September 1994; 2. order the Commission to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: Infringement of Community law: there is no legal basis for an order that the appellants should bear joint and several liability for the fine imposed on Finnboard. Article 15(2) of Council Regulation No 17 does not impose liability for infringements of third parties. Neither the Commission nor the Court of First Instance found that the appellants had themselves infringed Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty. The Court's view that an undertaking may be held jointly and severally liable for payment of a fine where the Commission finds in the same instrument that the infringement could have been established also in the case of that undertaking infringes the principle of nulla poena sine lege, or the prohibition which follows by analogy from that principle, and the principle of the presumption of innocence; it is incompatible with the principles of the rule of law and contravenes the appellants' fundamental rights of defence. The Court of First Instance wrongly relies on the case-law of the Court of Justice on the determination of fines in regard to undertakings which form an economic unit. Joint and several liability cannot be derived from the principles of economic unity. Moreover, the preconditions for a finding that there was economic unity do not exist.

Appeal brought on 29 July 1998 by Metsä-Serla OYJ, UPM-Kymmene OYJ (formerly United Paper Mills Ltd), Tamrock OY (formerly Tampella Corporation) and Kyro OYJ ABP (formerly OY Kyro AB) against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Third Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-339/94, T-340/94, T-341/94 and T-342/94 Metsä-Serla OYJ and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-294/98 P) (98/C 299/33) An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Third Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-339/94, T-340/94, T-341/94 and T-342/94 Metsä-Serla OYJ and Others against the Commission of

Action brought on 29 July 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-296/98) (98/C 299/34) An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 July 1998 by the Commission of the European