# C_2019357EN.01002101.xml

| 21.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 19 July 2019 — Fussl Modestraße Mayr GmbH v SevenOne Media GmbH

(Case C-555/19)

(2019/C 357/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fussl Modestraße Mayr GmbH

Defendant: SevenOne Media GmbH

Questions referred

Are

| 1. | a) | Article 4(1) of Directive 2010/13/EU, (1) |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

a)

Article 4(1) of Directive 2010/13/EU, (1)

| b) | the principle of equal treatment under EU law and |
| --- | --- |

b)

the principle of equal treatment under EU law and

| c) | the rules under Article 56 TFEU on freedom to provide services
  to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a provision in national law that prohibits the regional broadcasting of advertising on broadcasting programmes authorised for the entire Member State? |
| --- | --- |

c)

the rules under Article 56 TFEU on freedom to provide services

to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a provision in national law that prohibits the regional broadcasting of advertising on broadcasting programmes authorised for the entire Member State?

| 2. | Is Question 1 to be assessed differently if the national law allows statutory rules pursuant to which the regional broadcasting of advertising can be permitted by law and, in that case, is permitted with an — additionally required — official permit? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Question 1 to be assessed differently if the national law allows statutory rules pursuant to which the regional broadcasting of advertising can be permitted by law and, in that case, is permitted with an — additionally required — official permit?

| 3. | Is Question 1 to be assessed differently if no use is actually made of the possibility of permitting regional advertising as described in Question 2 and regional advertising is therefore prohibited in its entirety? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Question 1 to be assessed differently if no use is actually made of the possibility of permitting regional advertising as described in Question 2 and regional advertising is therefore prohibited in its entirety?

| 4. | Having regard to Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, is Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, particularly the principle of pluralism of the media, to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national provision such as that described in Questions 1, 2 and 3? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Having regard to Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, is Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, particularly the principle of pluralism of the media, to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national provision such as that described in Questions 1, 2 and 3?

---

(1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1).

---