EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-101/17: Action brought on 15 February 2017 — Apple Distribution International v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017TN0101

62017TN0101

February 15, 2017
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

18.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/39

(Case T-101/17)

(2017/C 121/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Distribution International (Cork, Ireland) (represented by: S. Schwiddessen, H. Lutz, N. Niejahr, and A. Patsa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2042 of 1 September 2016;

order the European Commission to pay its own costs as well as the applicant’s costs in connection with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging a violation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive

First, the European Commission violated Articles 2(1), 2(2) and 3 of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive by finding that the country of origin principle does not apply to the film levy. Second, the European Commission violated Article 13(1) of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive by considering that this article allows Member States to impose financial contributions for the promotion of European works on video-on-demand providers who are established in other Member States.

2.Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 110 TFEU

The European Commission violated Article 110 TFEU by finding that the application of the film levy to video-on-demand providers who are established in other Member States is not discriminatory.

3.Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 56 TFEU

The European Commission failed to examine whether the application of the film levy to video-on-demand providers who are established in other Member States violates Article 56 TFEU

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Directive 98/34/EC

The European Commission failed to examine whether the application of the film levy to video-on-demand providers who are established in other Member States required notification under Directive 98/34/EC.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia