AEPI v Commission - an economist tells all

The grandly-named Franck Latrémolière (partner, Reckon LLP, right) has come gallantly to the IPKat's rescue with some explanation of yesterday's Court of First Instance ruling in Case T-229/05 AEPI v The Commission (see post here). Explains Franck:
"In AEPI the only question for decision was whether the Commission had been wrong to refuse to investigate the complaint made on behalf of Greek broadcasters unhappy at the level of music performance licensing fees. The CFI held that the Commission's decision was sufficiently reasoned and was not manifestly wrong. In fact, it goes a bit further than that and endorses the logic of the Commission's refusal to investigate, in particular the arguments

* that the complainants had an effective recourse in the Greek courts or to the Greek competition authority and

* that the impact on cross-border trade of excessive copyright licensing fees in Greece was dubious and unproven.

This is a similar case to Au lys de France v Commission (a competition complaint by an airport shop against alleged excessive rents, also decided by Hubert Légal's chamber in favour of the Commission last week). My impression from reading both judgments is that AEPI's case was less strong, and much less well presented: some of the AEPI's arguments reported in the judgment are pure bombast with no visible means of (legal) support".
Says the IPKat, thanks Franck! And if you want to read a slightly longer overview of the case on Reckon's website, here it is.
AEPI v Commission - an economist tells all <i>AEPI v Commission</i>  -  an economist tells all Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, July 13, 2007 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.