Brussels, 06/11/2012 (Agence Europe) - In a ruling on Tuesday 6 November 2012 in three connected cases, the European Court of Justice rejected an appeal by French publisher Odile Jacob for cancellation of a ruling by the Europeann General Court that the acquisition of Vivendi Universal Publishing (VUP) by Lagardère is compatible with the single market competition rules (cf the Advocate-General's conclusions in the same case, EUROPE 10568). The Court also confirmed cancellation of the decision to authorise the acquisition of VUP assets by Wendel Investissement.
In the first case (C-551/10 P), Odile Jacob called for cancellation of the General Court Ruling T-279/04 (see EUROPE 10214) validating (despite Odile Jacob's appeal) a 2004 decision by the European Commission to allow Lagardère to buy up VUP on condition that many VUP assets were sold. In order to meet the deadlines for prior autorisation, Lagardère asked Natexis bank to provisionally buy up the assets in question and then sell them back once the merger had been authorised by the Commission. In its arguments, Odile Jacob said that the General Court had made an error of judgement by describing this asset sale as not being a merger and therefore not requiring authorisation from the Commission. The Court of Justice disagreed, saying that the legal definition of the sale did not impact on the legality of the Commission's decision that the Lagardère/VUP merger complies with EU single market rules.
The Court of Justice also rejected the appeals by the Commission and Lagardère in combined cases C-553/10 P and C-554/10 P against General Court ruling T-452 (see EUROPE 10214) cancelling the Commission's decision to allow Wendel Investment to purchase the VUP assets so that Lagardère could meet its commitments. The Court of Justice said that the General Court had not commited any errors in ruling that the assessment of Wendel's purchase application, in the light of which the Commission took the second decision, had been drawn up by a trustee (the head of auditing firm S, designated by Lagardère) and therefore did not confer the required level of independence from the assets in question. The trustee had in fact been an independent trustee for a certain length of time and was a member of VUP's board. (FG/transl.fl)