Luxemburg: 21/04/2006 (Agence Europe) - For the whole week, up to and including Saturday if necessary, the Court of First Instance will hear arguments from the parties and companies or associations intervening either on behalf of Microsoft or on behalf of the European Commission in the hearing opposing the two (see related article). Microsoft is calling for the Commission's decision of 24 March 2004, which found it guilty of infringing competition rules, to be annulled. The Commission imposed a fine of 497 million euro on Microsoft. The US group was also to make available documentation on Windows interfaces and offer a version of its Windows system separate from its Windows Media Player. In an interim order of 22 December 2004, the President of the European Court Bo Vesterdorf rejected Microsoft's request for the provisional suspension of the measures imposed by the Commission (see EUROPE 8854). The hearing will go on alongside negotiations taking place between Microsoft and the Commission on the implementation of this decision which is in force at least until the Court delivers its verdict (see EUROPE 9164), which will not be before 2007.
This week, debate will largely be centred on the application and interpretation of the IMS Health ruling of 29 April 2004. The fifth chamber of the European Court of Justice said that the refusal of a company in a dominant position to grant licences to other companies was only a punishable offence according to competition law in certain conditions, fixed by the ruling. The question, therefore, and which separates the parties, is whether this IMS Health ruling is relevant and, if so, how is it to be interpreted. The case will be heard by the grand chamber of the European Court made up of 13 judges, presided by the President of the Court, Bo Vesterdorf. The judge rapporteur on the case is the Irish judge John Cook. Initially the case was to be for a more limited chamber, and the rapporteur to be Herbert Legal. The publication of an article in which this latter praised the Commission for the way it dealt with certain cases relating to competition was, for many observers, the reason for the change. At the same time, the assistance and advice given to Microsoft by two former judges at the Court of Justice, Melchior Wathelt and Sir David Edward, and also the former judge and President of the European Court of First Instance from 1989 till 1995, continue to stir emotions among some within the European courts (see EUROPE 9172).