Court confirms injunction

GRUPO CLARIN S.A.

Court confirms injunction

On 7 June 2012, Grupo Clarín S.A. (the "Company") informed the Argentine Securities Commission and the Buenos Aires Stock Exchange that on 6 June 2013 its subsidiary Cablevisión S.A. ("Cablevisión") had been served notice of a decision rendered by Chamber 4 of the Federal Court of Appeals on Administrative Matters whereby that court decided (i) not to hear, for formal reasons, the appeal filed by Cablevisión against an injunction whereby the National Court of First Instance on Federal Administrative Matters No. 9 had ordered Cablevisión to comply with Section 65 of Decree No. 1225/2010 and AFSCA Resolution No. 296/2010, and (ii) to reduce the fine for non-compliance from the original AR$20,000 per day to AR$2,000 per day, as from the date on which the decision becomes final.

Section 65 of Decree No. 1225/2010 and AFSCA Resolution No. 296/2010 lay out the order in which subscription television providers must display signals on their programming grids.

The Company will file the corresponding appeals against such decision.

Attached is a free translation of the relevant parts of the decision.

Enquiries:

In Buenos Aires:

Alfredo Marín/Agustín Medina Manson

Grupo Clarín

Tel: +5411 4309 7215

Email: [email protected] 

In London:

Alex Money/Clare Gallagher

Jasford IR

Tel: +44 20 3289 5300

Email: [email protected] 

In New York:

Melanie Carpenter

I-advize Corporate Communications

Tel: +1 212 406 3692

Email: [email protected]

FREE TRANSLATION

National Judicial Branch

Case No. 41,223/12 "AFSCA-INC. MED- v. CABLEVISIÓN - DECREE NO. 1225/10 - RESOLUTION 296/10 re: PROCEEDING TO REACH JUDICIAL DECISION" (PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO).

Buenos Aires, 6 June 2013.

HAVING REVIEWED:

The appeals filed by the defendant on pp. 246 (and its reverse side), 291/293 (and its reverse side), 316, 324, 327/331 against the decisions of pp. 216/224, 287, 289, 315 and 323, respectively; and

WHEREAS:

[RECITALS I THROUGH XI INTENTIONALLY OMMITTED]

XII. In light of the above, one must reach the conclusion that the appeal filed by Cablevisión S.A. on p. 316, against the decision that declared a similar remedy filed on p. 246 abandoned, was wrongly granted because [the defendant] did not file instead the complaint (queja) provided under Section 282 of the National Code of Procedures on Civil and Commercial Matters. Especially when in this case we do not find the extraordinary or exceptional circumstances that would merit a different solution (argument based on Section 202 CPCCN). Costs [to the defeated party]. Consequently, WE SO DECIDE.

XIII. We must arrive at the same conclusion with respect to the subsidiary appeal proposed on pages 327/331 and granted by the [first instance judge] on p. 353.

[…]

Therefore, the subsidiary appeal filed on p. 327/331, granted on p. 353, and responded on pp. 357/369 is formally inadmissible. Costs [to the defeated party]. Consequently, WE SO DECIDE.

[…]

XIV.  Finally, we must examine the appeal filed against the decision of the lower court of 1 August 2012, which, admitting petitions from the claimant agency, imposed a fine (astreintes) on Cablevisión S.A. and set its amount at AR$20,000, "for each day of delay in complying with the order issued by this Court in the Decision of pages 216/224" (p. 315 and its reverse side).

[…]

On that basis, and taking into account the different allegations of the parties as well as the particular circumstances that surrounded this collateral proceeding, to which we have made reference throughout this decision, the Court believes that the amount set at the first instance was disproportionate, for which reason we hereby reduce it to two thousand pesos (AR$ 2,000) for each day that the injunction remains in effect, as from the moment when this decision becomes final. This, additionally and for the sake of further argument, because these fines, when accrued or even when paid, "do not constitute an economic right that has been definitely acquired by the holder of the infringed right,", for which reason [a court] could order their reimbursement if it is so requested ([…]). Costs as incurred.

Consequently, WE SO DECIDE.

Let this decision be notified, registered and returned.

/S/ MARCELO DANIEL DUFFY

/S/ JORGE EDUARDO MORAN

/S/ ROGELIO W. VINCENTI