Reports of Cases before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance V. 2022-02

About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

2022-02 Reports of Cases before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance 1 (2022)

handle is hein.intyb/rcbjcofi0426 and id is 1 raw text is: Reports of Cases
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
RICHARD DE LA TOUR
delivered on 28 October 20211
Case C-275/20
European Commission
V
Council of the European Union
(Action for annulment - Decision (EU) 2020/470 - Extension of the period of entitlement for
audiovisual co-productions as provided for in Article 5 of the Protocol on Cultural Cooperation to
the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part,
and the Republic of Korea, of the other part - Procedural legal basis - Article 218(7) TFEU -
Applicable procedure and voting rule)
I. Introduction
1. By its application, the European Commission seeks the annulment of Council Decision
(EU) 2020/470 of 25 March 2020 as regards the extension of the period of entitlement for
audiovisual co-productions as provided for in Article 5 of the Protocol on Cultural Cooperation
to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one
part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part.2
2. That Protocol established a framework within which the Parties cooperate for facilitating
exchanges regarding cultural activities, goods and services, including inter alia in the audiovisual
sector, and for improving the conditions governing such exchanges. In the Protocol, the Parties
agreed to grant audiovisual co-productions between producers from the European Union and
from the Republic of Korea entitlement to benefit from their respective schemes for the
promotion of local/regional cultural content. That entitlement is subject to renewal every three
years.
3. At EU level, the Commission was authorised by the Council of the European Union to
terminate the entitlement at issue before the expiry of each period or to propose its renewal. The
present case will lead the Court to clarify whether that authorisation falls within the scope of
Article 218(7) TFEU and, if so, whether the conditions governing its exercise are consistent with
that provision.
1 Original language: French.
2 OJ 2020 L 101, p. 1, 'the contested decision'.

ECLI:EU:C:2021:8821

1