188 / 348
4
Section 6 - Litigation
Financial Report
| Statutory Auditors’ Report on the Consolidated Financial Statements | Consolidated
Financial Statements | Statutory Auditors’ Report on the Financial Statements | Statutory Financial Statements
the Paris Tribunal of First Instance recognized the contractual liability of
Canal+ Group due to the degradation of the quality of channels made
available to Parabole Réunion. The Tribunal ordered an expert report on
the damages suffered by Parabole Réunion, rejecting the assessment
produced by the latter. On November 14, 2014, Canal+ Group appealed
against the decision of the Paris Tribunal of First Instance.
■
■
beIN Sports against the National Rugby League
and Canal+ Group
On March 11, 2014, beIN Sports lodged a complaint with the French
Competition authority against Canal+ Group and the National Rugby
League, challenging the award to Canal+ Group of exclusive broadcasting
rights to the “TOP 14” for the 2014-2015 to 2018-2019 seasons. On
July 30, 2014, the French Competition Authority imposed interim
measures suspending Canal+ Group’s agreement with the National Rugby
League as from the 2015-2016 season and mandated that a new call
for tenders process be organized. Canal+ Group and the National Rugby
League appealed this decision before the Paris Court of Appeal.
On October 9, 2014, the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of
Canal+ Group and the National Rugby League and directed the National
Rugby League to complete a new tender process for rights to the
“TOP 14” for the 2015-2016 season as well as the following seasons
by no later than March 31, 2015. On October 30, 2014, Canal+ Group
appealed against this decision.
■
■
Action brought by the French competition authority
regarding practices in the pay-TV sector
On January 9, 2009, further to its voluntary investigation and a complaint
by Orange, the French Competition Authority sent Vivendi and Canal+
Group a notification of allegations. It alleges that Canal+ Group has
abused its dominant position in certain Pay-TV markets and that Vivendi
and Canal+ Group colluded with TF1 and M6, on the one hand, and with
Lagardère, on the other. Vivendi and Canal+ Group have each denied
these allegations.
On November 16, 2010, the French Competition Authority rendered a
decision in which it dismissed the allegations of collusion, in respect of
all parties, and certain other allegations, in respect of Canal+ Group. The
French Competition Authority requested further investigation regarding
fiber optic TV and catch-up TV, Canal+ Group’s exclusive distribution
rights on channels broadcast by the Group and independent channels
as well as the extension of exclusive rights on TF1, M6 and Lagardère
channels to fiber optic and catch-up TV. On October 30, 2013, the French
Competition Authority took over the investigation into these aspects of
the case.
■
■
Canal+ Group against TF1, M6, and France Télévision
On December 9, 2013, Canal+ Group filed a complaint with the French
Competition Authority against the practices of the TF1, M6 and France
Télévision groups in the French-language film market. Canal+ Group
accused them of inserting pre-emption rights into co-production
contracts, in such a way as to discourage competition. The French
Competition Authority is examining the case.
■
■
Canal+ Group against TF1, and TMC Régie
On June 12, 2013, Canal+ Group and Canal+ Régie filed a complaint with
the French Competition Authority against the practices of TF1 and TMC
Régie in the television advertising market. Canal+ Group and Canal+
Régie accused them of cross-promotion, having a single advertising
division and refusing to promote the D8 channel during its launch. The
French Competition Authority is examining the case.
■
■
Private copying levy case
On February 5, 2014, a claim was filed with Court of First Instance of
Nanterre (
Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre
) by Copie France
who is seeking compensation in respect of external hard drives used
in connection with the G5 set-top boxes. Copie France claims that the
external drive used by Canal+ is “dedicated” to the set-top boxes and
therefore it should be treated as an integrated hard drive. Copie France
believes that the applicable amount of the compensation is €45 per hard
drive as opposed to €8.7.
■
■
Aston France against Canal+ Group
On September 25, 2014, Aston notified the French Competition Authority
about Canal+ Group’s decision to stop selling its satellite subscription
called “cards only” (enabling the reception of Canal+/Canalsat programs
on Canal Ready-labeled satellite decoders, manufactured and distributed
by third parties, including Aston). In parallel, on September 30, 2014,
Aston filed a request for injunctive relief against Canal+ Group before
the Commercial Court of Paris, seeking a stay of the decision of the
Canal+ Group to terminate the Canal Ready partnership agreement and
thus stop the marketing of satellite subscriptions called “cards only”. On
October 17, 2014, the Paris Commercial Court issued an order denying
Aston’s requests. On November 4, 2014, Aston appealed this decision
and, on January 15, 2015, the Paris Court of Appeal, ruling in chambers,
granted its request and suspended the decision of Canal+ Group to
stop selling its “cards only” subscriptions until the French Competition
Authority renders its decision on the merits of the case.
■
■
Complaints against music industry majors
in the United States
Several complaints have been filed before the Federal Courts in New
York and California against Universal Music Group and the other music
industry majors for alleged anti-competitive practices in the context of
sales of CDs and Internet music downloads. These complaints have been
consolidated before the Federal Court in New York. The motion to dismiss
filed by the defendants was granted by the Federal Court on October 9,
2008, but this decision was reversed by the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals on January 13, 2010. The defendants filed a motion for rehearing
which was denied. They filed a petition with the US Supreme Court which
was rejected on January 10, 2011. The discovery process is underway.
■
■
Complaints against UMG regarding royalties
for digital downloads
Since 2011, as has been the case with other music industry majors,
several purported class action complaints have been filed against UMG
by recording artists generally seeking additional royalties for on line sales
of music downloads and master ringtones. UMG contests the merits of
these actions.
188
Annual Report 2014