This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008CN0429
Case C-429/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 29 September 2008 — Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Limited
Case C-429/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 29 September 2008 — Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Limited
Case C-429/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 29 September 2008 — Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Limited
SL C 301, 22.11.2008, p. 26–28
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
22.11.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 301/26 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 29 September 2008 — Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Limited
(Case C-429/08)
(2008/C 301/42)
Language of the case: English
Referring court
High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Karen Murphy
Defendant: Media Protection Services Limited
Questions referred
1. |
In what circumstances is a conditional access device an ‘illicit device’ within the meaning of Article 2(e) of Directive 98/84/EC (1)? |
2. |
In particular, is a conditional access device an ‘illicit device’ if it is acquired in circumstances where:
|
3. |
If the answer to any part of Question 2 is ‘no’, does Article 3(2) of that Directive preclude a Member State from invoking a national law that prevents use of such conditional access devices in the circumstances set out in Question 2 above? |
4. |
If the answer to any part of Question 2 is ‘no’, is Article 3(2) of that Directive invalid:
|
5. |
If the answer to Question 2 is ‘yes’, are Articles 3(1) and 4 of that Directive invalid for the reason that they purport to require the Member States to impose restrictions on the importation from other Member States of and other dealings with ‘illicit devices’ in circumstances where those devices may lawfully be imported and/or used to receive cross border satellite broadcasting services by virtue of the rules on the free movement of goods under Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty and/or the freedom to provide and receive services under Article 49 of the EC Treaty? |
On the interpretation of Articles 12, 28, 30 and 49 of the EC Treaty
6. |
Do Articles 28, 30 and/or 49 EC preclude enforcement of a national law (such as section 297 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) which makes it a criminal offence dishonestly to receive a programme included in a broadcasting service provided from a place in the United Kingdom with intent to avoid payment of any charge applicable to the reception of the programme, in any of the following circumstances:
|
7. |
Is enforcement of the national law in question in any event precluded on the ground of discrimination contrary to Article 12 EC or otherwise, because the national law applies to programmes included in a broadcasting service provided from a place in the United Kingdom but not from any other Member State? |
On the interpretation of Article 81 of the EC Treaty
8. |
Where a programme content provider enters into a series of exclusive licences each for the territory of one or more Member States under which the broadcaster is licensed to broadcast the programme content only within that territory (including by satellite) and a contractual obligation is included in each licence requiring the broadcaster to prevent its satellite decoder cards which enable reception of the licensed programme content from being used outside the licensed territory, what legal test should the national court apply and what circumstances should it take into consideration in deciding whether the contractual restriction contravenes the prohibition imposed by Article 81(1)? In particular:
|
(1) Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access (OJ L 320, p. 54).