Communications Regulatory Authority

stage hearings resulted in 43 petitions 8 being upheld and the remaining 47 being
rejected.
50 appeals were heard “for merit reasons”, with 47 of them being rejected and 3
being upheld 9 .
In the same reference period 56 appeals were lodged before the Council of State,
42 of which concerned audiovisual matters 10 , 2 concerned equal access to the media, 8
concerned telecommunications, and 3 concerned staff matters. 7 of them were rejected
“for merit reasons” (with a successful result for AGCOM) while 1 was upheld (with an
unsuccessful result for AGCOM).
In the period in question significant dispute-settlement decisions were made by
the administrative judge – also relating to appeals initiated before the reference period –
which represent important shifts in the case-law trend followed with regard to matters
concerning AGCOM’s institutional action.
In particular, with regard to the audiovisual sector, the administrative judge of
first instance rejected all 44 appeals lodged against article 5 (item three) of the radio and
television advertising and teleshopping regulations (as adopted with Resolution no.
538/01/CSP), as introduced with Resolution no. 34/05/CSP, setting out hour-bracket
regulations for the airing of teleshopping programmes, advertisements and
“infomercials” relating to astrology, cartomancy and prediction services (Lazio TAR,
section II, no. 14302/05). The administrative judge then fully confirmed the validity of
measures introduced by AGCOM (among which there is the prohibition to broadcast
advertisements relating to astrology, cartomancy and prediction audiotex services in the
07:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. hour bracket) both in terms of the procedure followed for the
adoption of the challenged resolution, and from a substantial viewpoint.
Still with regard to radio and television advertising the Lazio TAR rejected two
appeals lodged by Gruppo Editoriale l’Espresso and by RTI and requesting the quashing
of Resolution 538/01/CSP, setting forth regulations on radio and television advertising
and teleshopping, and of subsequent amending resolutions nos. 250/04/CSP and
105/05/CSP (Lazio TAR, section II, nos. 14965/05 and 14357/05).
The Lazio TAR stated the full legitimacy of article 4, paragraph 5, of the abovementioned
regulations with respect to the section allowing advertising breaks during the
airing of sports events, not only during regular half-times prescribed by sports
8
42 of which involved appeals requesting the quashing of Resolution no. 34/05/CSP amending
regulations on television advertising and teleshopping.
9
In particular, 44 appeals lodged to request the quashing of Resolution no. 34/05/CSP were rejected “for
merit reasons”.
10
In particular, 32 appeals were lodged with (upheld) suspension petition with respect to Lazio TAR
measures issued in connection with appeals relating to the quashing of Resolution no. 34/05/CSP.
205