ADVISORY OPINION OF THE COURT of 12 June 1998 in Case E-8/97 (Request for an advisory opinion from Oslo byrett): TV 1000 Sverige AB v. The Norwegian Government, represented by the Royal Ministry of Cultural Affairs (1) (Council Directive 89/552/EEC - Transfrontier television broadcasting - Pornography) (Pursuant to Article 27(5) of the Rules of Procedure, only the English and Norwegian texts are authentic) (98/C 268/12)

In Case E-8/97, request to the Court pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court), Norway, for an advisory opinion in the case pending before it between TV 1000 Sverige AB and the Norwegian Government, represented by the Royal Ministry of Cultural Affairs, on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/552/EEC, the Court, composed of Bjørn Haug, President, Thór Vilhjálmsson (Judge-Rapporteur) and Carl Baudenbacher, Judges; and Asle Aarbakke, Registrar/Legal Secretary, gave an Advisory Opinion on 12 June 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:

Under Article 2(2) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC, it is for the national authorities of the receiving State to determine, in accordance with that State's values and national legislation, which programmes might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors within the meaning of Article 22, first paragraph, first sentence of the Directive.

The exception in the second sentence of Article 22, first paragraph does not extend to programmes 'which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors` dealt with in the first sentence of Article 22, first paragraph.

All the conditions listed in Article 2(2)(a) to (d) of the Directive must be fulfilled in order for the receiving State to restrict retransmission, regard being had to the principle of proportionality and the decision being subject to supervision by the Commission and the EFTA Surveillance Authority, as the case may be.

The criteria in Article 2(2)(a) and (b) are separate criteria, with (a) regulating the gravity of the infringement and (b) providing that the right to provisional suspension of retransmission arises when material infringing Article 22, as laid down in Article 2(2)(a), has been broadcast on three occasions within a period of 12 months.

(1) OJ C 20, 22.1.1998, p. 18.