Conclusion
78.In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should:
(1)set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 12 July 2007 in Case T‑229/05 AEPI v Commission;
(2)annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 18 April 2005 rejecting a complaint concerning an alleged infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by Greek companies responsible for the collective management of rights pertaining to copyright in the field of music;
(3)order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of both the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the present appeal proceedings.
1 – Original language: Italian.
2– AEPI brought an action for annulment of the decision of 20 April 2005 before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, which was dismissed by judgment of 5 September 2006 in Case T‑242/05 AEPI v Commission and upheld by the Court of Justice by order of 10 July 2007 in Case C‑461/06 P AEPI v Commission.
3–Case 395/87 [1989] ECR 2521, and Joined Cases 110/88, 241/88 and 242/88 [1989] ECR 2811 respectively.
4–Unofficial translation of an extract from the original French version of the contested decision.
5– None of the extracts from the judgment under appeal which appear in quotation marks in this Opinion is an official translation of the original French text.
6– The Court of First Instance referred, in that regard, to Case T‑24/90 Automec v Commission [1992] ECR II‑2223, paragraph 86; Case T‑5/93 Tremblay and Others v Commission [1995] ECR II‑185, paragraph 62; and Case T‑62/99 Sodima v Commission [2001] ECR II‑655, paragraph 46.
7– The Court of First Instance referred, in that regard, to Case 42/84 Remia and Others v Commission [1985] ECR 2545, paragraph 22, and Case T‑395/94 Atlantic Container Line and Others v Commission [2002] ECR II‑875, paragraph 90.
8– The Court of First Instance referred, in that regard,, in particular, to Case 22/78 Hugin v Commission [1979] ECR 1869, paragraph 17.
9– The Court of First Instance referred, in that regard, to Automec v Commission, paragraphs 89 and 90; Tremblay and Others v Commission, paragraphs 65 and 74; and Case T‑114/92 BEMIM v Commission [1995] ECR II‑147, paragraph 86.
10– Judgment under appeal, paragraph 38.
11– Judgment under appeal, paragraph 39.
12– Case C‑119/97 P [1999] ECR I‑1341, in particular paragraphs 79 to 81, 88, 89 and 92.
13– Judgment under appeal, paragraph 40.
14– Judgment under appeal, paragraphs 45 and 46.
15– The appellant refers to Hugin v Commission; Lucazeau and Others, Tournier; Case C‑41/90 Höfner and Elser [1991] ECR I‑1979; Case C‑179/90 Merci convenzionali porto di Genova [1991] ECR I‑5889; Case C‑18/93 Corsica Ferries [1994] ECR I‑1783; Joined Cases C‑241/91 P and C‑242/91 P RTE and ITP v Commission [1995] ECR I‑743; Tremblay and Others v Commission; and Case T‑228/97 Irish Sugar v Commission [1999] ECR II‑2969.
16– See Joined Cases 56/64 and 58/64 Consten and Grundig v Commission [1966] ECR 299, in particular p.341, and Joined Cases 6/73 and 7/73 Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano and Commercial Solvents v Commission [1974] ECR 223, paragraph 31.
17– See Remia and Others v Commission, paragraph 22, and Joined Cases C‑215/96 and C‑216/96 Bagnasco and Others [1999] ECR I‑135, paragraph 47.
18– Case 5/69 Völk [1969] ECR 295, paragraph 7. See also Case 22/71 BéguelinImport [1971] ECR 949, paragraph 16, and Case C‑306/96 Javico [1998] ECR I‑1983, paragraph 16.
19– Ufex and Others v Commission, paragraph 88, and Automec v Commission, paragraph 83.
20– See, by implication, Ufex and Others v Commission, paragraphs 52, 79, 95 and 96; Case C‑449/98 P IECC v Commission [2001] ECR I‑3875, paragraph 46; Case C‑450/98 P IECC v Commission [2001] ECR I‑3947, paragraphs 54 and 58; and the order in Case C‑39/00 P SGA v Commission [2000] ECR I‑11201, paragraph 67.
21– Ufex and Others v Commission, paragraphs 92 and 93. Emphasis added.
22– Emphasis added.
23– Order in Case C‑428/98 P Deutsche Post v IECC and Commission [2000] ECR I‑3061, paragraph 28.
24– See Case C‑401/96 P Somaco v Commission [1998] ECR I‑2587, paragraph 53; Case C‑446/00 P Cubero Vermurie v Commission [2001] ECR I‑10315, paragraph 20; and Case C‑3/06 P Groupe Danone v Commission [2007] ECR I‑1331, paragraph 45.
25– See, by analogy, Case 18/57 Nold v High Authority [1959] ECR 41, in particular 51; Case 185/85 Usinor v Commission [1986] ECR 2079, paragraphs 20 and 21; and Case C‑166/95 P Commission v Daffix [1997] ECR I‑983, paragraphs 23 and 24.
26– The relevant cases are Tournier; Lucazeau and Others; Merci convenzionali porto di Genova; Corsica Ferries; RTE and ITP v Commission and Irish Sugar v Commission, also referred to in the contested measure; and Case 7/82 GVL v Commission [1983] ECR 483.
27– In that respect, the analysis carried out by the Court of First Instance at paragraph 50 of the judgment under appeal appears to be inadequate, in the light of the fourth ground of appeal.
28– Rejoinder, paragraphs 29 and 30. Emphasis added.