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

61996J0056 European Court reports 1997 Page I-03143 5
v United Kingdom, paragraph 58).
20 According to Vlaamse Gemeenschap, in order for the provisions concerning free provision of services
to apply, it is not sufficient for the provider of a service to be established in another Member State; it is
also necessary, as is clear from the judgment in Case C-55/94 Gebhard [1995] ECR I-4165, that the
person providing the service must not also be established in the host Member State.
21 That argument disregards the fact the activity of a television broadcaster which consists in providing,
on a permanent basis, services from the Member State in which it is established for the purposes of
Article 2(1) of the Directive does not imply, as such, the pursuit in the host Member State of an activity
in regard to which it must be determined whether it is temporary or not, as was the case in Case C-222/94
Commission v United Kingdom.
22 It must also be emphasized that the mere fact that all the broadcasts and advertisements are aimed
exclusively at the Flemish public does not, as VTM claims, demonstrate that VT4 cannot be regarded as
being established in the United Kingdom. The Treaty does not prohibit an undertaking from exercising
the freedom to provide services if it does not offer services in the Member State in which it is established.
23 It follows from the foregoing that Article 2(1) of the Directive is to be interpreted as meaning that a
television broadcaster comes under the jurisdiction of the Member State in which it is established. If a
television broadcaster is established in more than one Member State, the Member State having jurisdiction
over it is the one in whose territory the broadcaster has the centre of its activities, in particular where
decisions concerning programme policy are taken and the programmes to be broadcast are finally put
together.
Costs
24 The costs incurred by the German and French Governments and by the Commission of the European
Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings
are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the
decision on costs is a matter for that court.
On those grounds,
THE COURT
(Sixth Chamber)
in answer to the question referred to it by the Raad van State, Belgium, by judgment of 14 February
1996, hereby rules:
Article 2(1) 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that a television broadcaster comes under the
jurisdiction of the Member State in which it is established. If a television broadcaster is established in
more than one Member State, the Member State having jurisdiction over it is the one in whose territory
the broadcaster has the centre of its activities, in particular where decisions concerning programme policy
are taken and the programmes to be broadcast are finally put together.
DOCNUM 61996J0056
© An extract from a JUSTIS database
244