Master's Program 2004/2005 Technical and Fiscal Barriers ... - Lexnet

More documents

Recommendations

Info

61996J0056 European Court reports 1997 Page I-03143 1 Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 June 1997 VT4 Ltd v Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Raad van State - Belgium. Free movement of services - Television broadcasting - Establishment - Evasion of domestic legislation. Case C-56/96. Freedom to provide services - Television broadcasting - Directive 89/552 - Television broadcaster under the jurisdiction of a Member State - Determining criterion - Establishment - Broadcaster established in more than one Member State (Council Directive 89/552, Art. 2(1)) Article 2(1) of Directive 89/552 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities is to be interpreted as meaning that a television broadcaster comes under the jurisdiction of the Member State in which it is established. Although the directive contains no express definition of the phrase `broadcasters under [the] jurisdiction [of a Member State]', it follows from the wording of Article 2(1) that the concept of jurisdiction of a Member State has to be understood as necessarily covering jurisdiction ratione personae over television broadcasters, which can be based only on their connection to that State's legal system, which in substance overlaps with the concept of establishment as used in the first paragraph of Article 59 of the Treaty, the wording of which presupposes that the supplier and the recipient of a service are `established' in two different Member States. Where a television broadcaster is established in more than one Member State, the Member State having jurisdiction over it is the Member State in which the broadcaster has the centre of its activities, in particular the place where decisions concerning programme policy are taken and where the programmes to be broadcast are finally put together. In Case C-56/96, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Raad van State, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between VT4 Ltd and Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Third parties: Intercommunale Maatschappij voor Gas en Elektriciteit van het Westen (Gaselwest) and Others, Vlaamse Uitgeversmaatschappij NV (VUM) Integan Intercommunale CV and Others, Vlaamse Televisie Maatschappij NV (VTM), on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), THE COURT (Sixth Chamber), composed of: G.F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, J.L. Murray, C.N. Kakouris, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges, © An extract from a JUSTIS database 240
61996J0056 European Court reports 1997 Page I-03143 2 Advocate General: C.O. Lenz, Registrar: H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of: - VT4 Ltd, by D. Vandermeersch, of the Brussels Bar, - Vlaamse Gemeenschap, by E. Brewaeys and J. Stuyck, of the Brussels Bar, - Vlaamse Televisie Maatschappij NV (VTM), by L. Neels, of the Antwerp Bar, and F. Herbert, of the Brussels Bar, - the German Government, by E. Röder, Ministerialrat at the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs, and S. Maaß, Regierungsrätin at the same Ministry, acting as Agents, - the French Government, by C. de Salins, Deputy Director at the Legal Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and P. Martinet, Foreign Affairs Secretary at the same Directorate, acting as Agents, - the Commission of the European Communities, by B.J. Drijber, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, having regard to the Report for the Hearing, after hearing oral observations from VT4 Ltd, represented by D. Vandermeersch; Vlaamse Gemeenschap, represented by E. Brewaeys and J. Stuyck; Vlaamse Televisie Maatschappij NV (VTM), represented by F. Herbert; and the Commission, represented by B.J. Drijber, at the hearing on 12 December 1996, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 6 February 1997, gives the following Judgment 1 By judgment of 14 February 1996, received at the Court on 26 February 1996, the Raad van State (Council of State), Belgium, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty a question on the interpretation of Article 2 of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23, hereinafter `the Directive'). 2 The question has been raised in an action for annulment brought by VT4 Ltd (hereinafter `VT4') against a decision adopted on 16 January 1995 by the Flemish Minister for Culture and Brussels Affairs (hereinafter `the Decision') refusing VT4 access for its television programme to the cable distribution network. 3 Article 2 of the Directive, which is contained in Chapter II entitled `General provisions', provides: `1. Each Member State shall ensure that all television broadcasts transmitted - by broadcasters under its jurisdiction, or - ... comply with the law applicable to broadcasts intended for the public in that Member State. 2. Member States shall ensure freedom of reception and shall not restrict retransmission on their territory of television broadcasts from other Member States for reasons which fall within the fields © An extract from a JUSTIS database 241
Page 1 and 2:
Master’s Program 2004/2005 Techni
Page 3 and 4:
Alberta iela 13 LV-1010 Riga Latvia
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Session no. 18-21 16-21 Monday 19 S
Page 11 and 12:
61984J0178 European Court reports 1
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190: 61995J0188 European Court reports 1
Page 239: 61991J0148 European Court reports 1
Page 289: 61997J0319 European Court reports 1
show all

Master's Program 2004/2005 Technical and Fiscal Barriers ... - Lexnet

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?