Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2011:374
Date: 2011-06-09
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Freedom to provide services
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Greece

Summary of the Judgment 1. European Union law – Interpretation – Texts in several languages – Differences between the various language versions – General scheme and purpose of the rules at issue taken into account 2. Freedom to provide services – Television broadcasting activities – Directive 89/552 – ‘Surreptitious advertising’ (Council Directive 89/552, Art. 1(d)) 1. The need of uniform application and, accordingly, uniform interpretation of the provisions of EU law makes it impossible for one version of the text of a provision to be considered, in case of doubt, in isolation, but requires it, on the contrary, to be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages. Where there is divergence between the various language versions of an EU legislative text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part. (see paras 23-24) 2. Article 1(d) 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, as amended by Directive 97/36, is to be interpreted as meaning that the provision of payment or of consideration of another kind is not a necessary condition for establishing the element of intent in surreptitious advertising. Although that provision establishes a presumption in accordance with which a representation of goods, services, the name, the trade mark or the activities of a producer of goods or a provider of services in programmes is to be considered to be intentional if that representation is done in return for payment or for similar consideration, it should not, however, be narrowly construed, for such an interpretation could compromise the full and proper protection of the interests of television viewers that that directive is intended to ensure and, furthermore, could deprive the prohibition of surreptitious advertising provided for in Article 10(4) of Directive 89/552 of its effectiveness, given the difficulty, or even the impossibility, in certain cases of proving that there has been provision of payment or of consideration of another kind for advertising which nevertheless displays all the characteristics of surreptitious advertising, as set out in Article 1(d) of that directive. In addition, it is possible for the legislation of a Member State to lay down other criteria, besides the provision of payment or of consideration of a similar kind, for establishing the intentional nature of surreptitious advertising. (see paras 30-37, operative part)