Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-155/06 Tomra Systems ASA and Others v European Commission dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 March 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.113 — Prokent/Tomra) imposing a fine of EUR 24 million on the appellants for abusing their dominant position by engaging in practices involving exclusivity agreements, quantity commitments and loyalty rebates in order to prevent or delay the entry of other manufacturers on the market for machine ...[+++]s for the collection of used beverage containers in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, and, in the alternative, an application for annulment or substantial reduction of the fine.

3. Emphasises that, on the other hand, following a complaint from users, the Commission's Directorate-General for Competition intervened by instituting a procedure against CISAC (International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers), which includes 24 European collecting societies amongst its members; points out that the effect of the decision taken in this regard will be to preclude all attempts by the parties concerned to act together in order to find appropriate solutions – such as, for instance, a system for the clearing of rights at the European level – and to leave the way open to an oligopoly of a number of large collecting societies ...[+++]linked by exclusive agreements to publishers belonging to the worldwide repertoire; believes that the result will be a restriction of choice and the extinction of small collecting societies to the detriment of minority cultures;

3. Emphasises that, on the other hand, following a complaint from users, the Commission's Directorate-General for Competition intervened by instituting a procedure against CISAC (International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers), which includes 24 European collecting societies amongst its members; points out that the effect of the decision taken in this regard will be to preclude all attempts by the parties concerned to act together in order to find appropriate solutions – such as, for instance, a system for the clearing of rights at the European level – and to leave the way open to an oligopoly of a number of large collecting societies ...[+++]linked by exclusive agreements to publishers belonging to the worldwide repertoire; believes that the result will be a restriction of choice and the extinction of small collecting societies to the detriment of minority cultures;

(iii) Concerning the reciprocal agreements between collecting societies, the Court of Justice addressed the reciprocal relationship between collecting societies in the Tournier and Lucazeau cases [23] back in 1989 and concluded that the reciprocal representation agreements entered into by the collecting societies in Europe did not, as such, fall under Article 81(1) of the Treaty, provided no concerted action or exclusivity was evidenced.

Firstly, the Commission makes clear, that it can only accept long-term, exclusivity provisions in favour of the collectors in the service agreements concluded between DSD and its collectors, when the indispensability of such provisions is justified on the basis of convincing economic evidence.