ECJ (Judgment) A Member State fails to comply with its obligations under Articles 2(1) and (2) and 3(2) 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 if, in order to determine the satellite broadcasters falling under its jurisdiction, it adopts criteria other than that of establishment, such as transmission or reception of programmes, which lead it to exercise control, prohibited by the Directive, over broadcasts falling under the jurisdiction of another Member State and, with regard to broadcasters which it considers to fall within its jurisdiction, it applies to non-domestic satellite services a regime which is less stringent than that to which domestic satellite services are subject.
The concept of jurisdiction of a Member State, used in the first indent of Article 2(1) of the Directive, must be understood as necessarily covering jurisdiction ratione personae over television broadcasters. This can be based only on those broadcasters’ 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 EC Treaty, the wording of which presupposes that the supplier and the recipient of a service are established in two different Member States. While a Member State may, under Article 3(1) of the Directive, lay down stricter rules in the areas covered by the Directive, the fact remains that, under Article 2(1), all broadcasts transmitted by broadcasters under the jurisdiction of that Member State or over which it is required to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the second indent of Article 2(1) must comply with the law applicable to broadcasts intended for the public in that Member State.
C-222/94, [1996] EUECJ C-222/94
Bailii
Directive 89/552
European, Media
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.161406
