EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 61973CJ0155

Az ítélet összefoglalása

Keywords
Summary

Keywords

++++

1 . PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS - COMPETENCE OF THE COURT - LIMITS

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 177 )

2 . FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - PROVISION OF SERVICES - DELIMITATION

3 . SERVICES - PROVISION - TELEVISION SIGNALS - TRANSMISSION - NATURE - MATERIAL PRODUCTS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIFFUSION - RULES RELATING TO THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 60 )

4 . FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - TELEVISION SIGNALS - COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING - UNDERTAKING OF A MEMBER STATE - EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS - ADMISSIBILITY - MANNER OF USE PROHIBITED

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 60 )

5 . QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS - MEASURES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO - MARKETING OF PRODUCTS - RESTRICTIVE EFFECTS PROHIBITED

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 30 )

6 . NATIONAL MONOPOLIES HAVING A COMMERCIAL CHARACTER - PROVISION OF SERVICES

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 86, ARTICLE 90 )

7 . COMPETITION - UNDERTAKINGS TO WHICH MEMBER STATES GRANT SPECIAL OR EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS - DOMINANT POSITION WITHIN THE MARKET - ADMISSIBILITY

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 86, ARTICLE 90 )

8 . COMPETITION - UNDERTAKINGS ENTRUSTED WITH THE OPERATION OF SERVICES OF GENERAL ECONOMIC INTEREST - APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF COMPETITION

9 . COMPETITION - PUBLIC UNDERTAKINGS - UNDERTAKINGS TO WHICH MEMBER STATES GRANT SPECIAL OR EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS - DOMINANT POSITION WITHIN THE MARKET - ABUSE - PROHIBITION - DIRECT EFFECT - INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS - JUDICIAL PROTECTION

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 86, ARTICLE 90 )

10 . SERVICES - PROVISION - TELEVISION SIGNALS - UNDERTAKING OF A MEMBER STATE - EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS - DISCRIMINATION BY REASON OF NATIONALITY - PROHIBITION

( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 7 )

Summary

1 . ARTICLE 177, WHICH IS BASED ON A CLEAR SEPARATION OF FUNCTIONS BETWEEN THE NATIONAL COURTS AND THIS COURT, DOES NOT ALLOW THIS COURT TO JUDGE THE GROUNDS FOR THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION .

2 . ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT RULED OUT THAT SERVICES NORMALLY PROVIDED FOR REMUNERATION MAY COME UNDER THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS, SUCH IS HOWEVER THE CASE, AS APPEARS FROM ARTICLE 60, ONLY INSOFAR AS THEY ARE GOVERNED BY SUCH PROVISIONS .

3 . THE TRANSMISSION OF TELEVISION SIGNALS, INCLUDING THOSE IN THE NATURE OF ADVERTISEMENTS, COMES, AS SUCH, WITHIN THE RULES OF THE TREATY RELATING TO SERVICES .

HOWEVER, TRADE IN ARTICLES, SOUND RECORDINGS, FILMS, APPARATUS AND OTHER PRODUCTS USED FOR THE DIFFUSION OF TELEVISION SIGNALS IS SUBJECT TO THE RULES RELATING TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR GOODS .

4 . THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS WHICH AN UNDERTAKING ENJOYS TO TRANSMIT ADVERTISEMENTS BY TELEVISION IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PRODUCTS, THE MARKETING OF WHICH SUCH ADVERTISEMENTS ARE INTENDED TO PROMOTE .

IT WOULD HOWEVER BE DIFFERENT IF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT WERE USED TO FAVOUR, WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, PARTICULAR TRADE CHANNELS OR PARTICULAR ECONOMIC CONCERNS IN RELATION TO OTHERS .

5 . MEASURES GOVERNING THE MARKETING OF PRODUCTS, THE RESTRICTIVE EFFECTS OF WHICH EXCEED THE EFFECTS INTRINSIC TO TRADE RULES, ARE CAPABLE OF CONSTITUTING MEASURES WHICH HAVE AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS AND BY REASON OF THIS ARE PROHIBITED .

SUCH IS THE CASE, IN PARTICULAR, WHERE THE RESTRICTIVE EFFECTS ARE OUT OF PROPORTION TO THEIR PURPOSE, SUCH AS THE ORGANIZATION, ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF A MEMBER STATE, OF TELEVISION AS A SERVICE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST .

6 . IT FOLLOWS BOTH FROM THE PLACE OF ARTICLE 37 IN THE CHAPTER ON THE ELIMINATION OF QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS AND FROM THE USE OF THE WORDS 'IMPORTS' AND 'EXPORTS' IN THE SECOND INDENT OF ARTICLE 37 ( 1 ) AND OF THE WORD 'PRODUCTS' IN ARTICLE 37 ( 3 ) AND ( 4 ) THAT IT REFERS TO TRADE IN GOODS AND CANNOT RELATE TO A MONOPOLY IN THE PROVISION OF SERVICES .

7 . THE FACT THAT AN UNDERTAKING TO WHICH A MEMBER STATE GRANTS EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 90, OR EXTENDS SUCH RIGHTS FOLLOWING FURTHER INTERVENTION BY SUCH STATE, HAS A MONOPOLY, IS NOT AS SUCH INCOMPTIBLE WITH ARTICLE 86 OF THE TREATY .

THE EXERCISE OF THE MONOPOLY COMES, INSOFAR AS IT COMPRISES ACTIVITIES OF AN ECONOMIC NATURE, UNDER THE PROVISIONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 90 RELATING TO PUBLIC UNDERTAKINGS AND UNDERTAKINGS TO WHICH MEMBER STATES GRANT SPECIAL OR EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS .

8 . IF CERTAIN MEMBER STATES TREAT UNDERTAKINGS ENTRUSTED WITH THE OPERATION OF TELEVISION, EVEN AS REGARDS THEIR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES, IN PARTICULAR ADVERTISING, AS UNDERTAKINGS ENTRUSTED WITH THE OPERATION OF SERVICES OF GENERAL ECONOMIC INTEREST, THE PROHIBITIONS ON DISCRIMINATION APPLY, AS REGARDS THEIR BEHAVIOUR WITHIN THE MARKET, BY REASON OF ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ), SO LONG AS IT IS NOT SHOWN THAT THE SAID PROHIBITIONS ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR TASKS .

9 . EVEN WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF ARTICLE 90 THE PROHIBITIONS OF ARTICLE 86 HAVE A DIRECT EFFECT AND CONFER ON INTERESTED PARTIES RIGHTS WHICH NATIONAL COURTS MUST SAFEGUARD .

10 . THE GRANT OF THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO TRANSMIT TELEVISION SIGNALS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A BREACH OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE TREATY .

DISCRIMINATION BY UNDERTAKINGS ENJOYING SUCH EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS AGAINST NATIONALS OF MEMBER STATES BY REASON OF THEIR NATIONALITY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THIS PROVISION .

Top