NoC98/44 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 21.4.92
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilDirectiveonthecoordinationofcertainrules
concerningcopyrightandneighbouringrightsapplicabletosatellitebroadcastingandcable
retransmission I1)
(92/C98/17)
On26September1991theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticle57,paragraph2,oftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity,
ontheabovementioned proposal.
TheSectionforIndustry,Commerce,CraftsandServices,whichwasresponsibleforpreparing
theCommittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon5February1992.The
RapporteurwasMrPardon.
Atits294thPlenarySession(meetingof26February1992),theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeadoptedthefollowingOpinionunanimously .
services,nomatterwhetherthemeanswherebyitis
showntothepublicbethecinemaortelevision'(judge­
mentoftheCourtofJusticeof6October1982,case
262/81,Coditel,ECR3400).
1.6.Thepurposeoftheproposalistosupplement
Directive89/552/EECbylayingdownrulesforcopy­
rightandneighbouringrights.
1.7.ItseekstoestablishaCommunitypolicywhich
willencourageartisticcreationandprovidecreators
withahighleveloflegal,economicandmoralprotec­
tion.
1.8.TheCommitteeapprovesthisobjective.Radio
andtelevisionbroadcasting 'withoutfrontiers'hasnow
becomearealityandisapracticalmanifestationofthe
freedomtoprovideservicesinaccordancewithTreaty
Article59.1.Generalcomments
1.1.Copyrightandneighbouring rightsarenot
coveredbythe'TelevisionWithoutFrontiersDirective',
thatistosayCouncilDirective89/552/EECof3Octo­
ber1989onthecoordinationofcertainprovisionslaid
downbylaw,regulationoradministrative actionin
MemberStatesconcerningthepursuitoftelevision
broadcastingactivities(2).
1.2.Copyright,withinthemeaningoftheBerne
Convention,encompassestheeconomicandmoralpre­
rogativesgrantedtothecreatorsofliteraryandartistic
works.
1.3.Neighbouring rightsarerightsrelatedtocopy­
rightbywhichcertaincategoriesofpersonsor
enterprisescontributingtothecreationofcultural
worksareguaranteedarevenuefortheiractivities.
1.4.Inthefieldofcinematography ,theproduceris
theexclusivecopyrightholder.Thisexclusiverightof
exploitationcanbeassignedbytheproducertothe
distributor,whointurnwillgrantperformingrights
totheexhibitor;atthesametimetheproducerwill
guaranteethedistributorandthedistributorwill
guaranteetheexhibitorsthattheworkwillnotbe
broadcastontelevision,forexample.
1.5.AstheCourtheldinitsjudgementof18March
1980[case62/79,Coditel,EuropeanCourtReports
(ECR)881],'theproblemsinvolvedintheobservance
ofafilmproducer'srightsinrelationtotherequire­
mentsoftheTreatyarenotthesameasthosewhich
ariseinconnectionwithliteraryandartisticworks,
theplacingofwhichatthedisposalofthepublicis
inseparablefromthecirculationofthematerialform
oftheworks,asinthecaseofbooksorrecords,whereas
thefilmbelongstothecategoryofliteraryandartistic
worksmadeavailabletothepublicbyperformances
whichmaybeinfinitelyrepeatedandthecommercial
exploitationofwhichcomesunderthemovementof1.9.Underthesecircumstancestheholdersofcopy­
rightandneighbouringrightsshouldbeentitledto
profitinfullfrombroadcasting'sEuropean-wide
dimension.Thisisvital,especiallyifencouragement is
tobegiventotheproductionofEuropeanfilmsand,
moregenerally,tovisualandsoundrecordings.
1.10.Generally,theproposalwillhelptostrengthen
theprotectionofintellectualpropertyrightsinEurope
andbuildarealEuropeanmarketforcreativeworks.
1.11.Newtechnologicaldevelopments ,suchassatel­
litebroadcasting ,havenotalwaysbeeneasytoreconcile
withtheconceptscontainedinnationallawsand,above
all,thelawsonintellectualpropertyright.
(i)OJNoC255,1.10.1991,p.3.
(2)OJNoL298,17.10.1989,p.29.1.12.Thedevelopmentofsatellitebroadcastinghas
beenseriouslyimpededbylegaluncertaintyabout

21.4.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC98/45
whereandwhencopyrightcomesintoforceandhow
copyrightistobeapplied.
1.13.Thisposesaseriousproblembothfortitlehold­
ers,whocannotexploittheirrightsthroughsatellite
broadcasting ,andforbroadcasters ,whoareunableto
acquiretherightsrequiredforsatellitebroadcasting .titlingforthebenefitofdifferentlanguage
groups,tothepossibilitiesoftelevisionbroad­
casts,andtothesystemoffinancingcinemato­
graphicproductioninEuropeservetoshow
thatanexclusiveexhibitionlicenceisnot,in
itself,suchastoprevent,restrictordistort
competition .
17.Althoughcopyrightinafilmandtheright
derivingfromit,namelythatofexhibitingthe
film,arenot,therefore,assuchsubjectto
theprohibitionscontainedinArticle85,the
exerciseofthoserightsmay,nonetheless,
comewithinthesaidprohibitionswherethere
areeconomicorlegalcircumstancestheeffect
ofwhichistorestrictfilmdistributiontoan
appreciabledegreeortodistortcompetition
onthecinematographic market,regardbeing
hadtothespecificcharacteristics ofthat
market.»1.14.Wishingtofillthelegalvoidwhichcurrently
existsinthefieldofsatellitebroadcasting ,theCom­
missionisseekingtodefineclearrulesforthebenefit
ofrightholdersandbroadcasters .Inorderthatasingle
broadcastingoperationisnotgovernedbyamultitude
oflawsorbynolawsatall,theCommissionisseeking
toprovideanexactdefinitionofwhatsatellitebroad­
castingconstitutesandassuchrequirestheauthoriz­
ationofrightholders .
2.Specificcomments
2.1.Articlela):Satellite1.15.AccordingtotheCommission'sdefinition,the
broadcasterwhotakesthesingledecisiononthecon­
tent,placeandtimeofatransmission ,i.e.whotakes
anirreversibledecisiontotransmitaspecificpro­
gramme,isresponsibleforthebroadcastingoperation.
Consequently ,thisbroadcasterhastoaskforauthoriz­
ationwhereandwhenthisoperationtakesplace.Theproposalquiterightlymakesnodistinction
betweenbroadcastingsatellites,whichtransmitamore
powerfulsignalonfrequencieswhichareallocatedto
thepublicfordirectreception,andcommunications
satellites,whichtransmitprogramme-carrying signals
atalowerpower.Thebroadcastingofprogramme
signalsviaacommunications satelliteshouldbeputon
thesamefootingasfarascopyrightandneighbouring
rightsareconcernedasbroadcastingbydirectsatellite,
sinceitiscomparabletothelatter.1.16.Itgoeswithoutsayingthattherightholders'
authorization isfreelynegotiable.Hencethecon­
tractingpartieshavetofindsolutionswhichtakeinto
consideration ,interalia,theplannedbroadcast'sterri­
torialcoverandalltheeffectswhichaparticularpro­
gramme'sbroadcastbysatellitemayhaveonthechron­
ologyofaworks'exploitationortheremunerationfor
othermeansofexploitation .
1.17.TheproposalcannotprejudicetheTreaty's
competitionrules.2.2.Articlelb):Communication tothepublicbysatel­
lite
2.2.1.Theproposedtextstatesthatcommunication
tothepublicmeans'theactoftakingasingledecision
onthecontentandthetransmisionbysatelliteofpro­
gramme-carrying signalsbythebroadcaster'andthat
theactofcommunication takesplace'intheMember
Statewherethebroadcastertakesthesingledecision...'.
Point5inpartIIoftheexplanatorymemorandum
statesthat'asarulethiswillbetheheadquartersof
thebroadcastingorganization'.
2.2.2.Thus,thebroadcastingoperationcoversnot
onlythemakingandtransmissionofprogrammesbut
alsothedecisionregardingtheplaceofbroadcast.The
actofdeterminingwheretheseoperationstookplace
andwhowasresponsibleforthemmeansdetermining
wheretherelevantdecisionwastakenandbywhomit
wastakenandnotsimplywhereandbywhomthe
physicalactofbroadcastingwasperformed .Theques­
tionofwheretheacttakesplaceandwhoistobe
legallyresponsiblewillthereforerelatetothedecision­
makingprocessandnotsimplytothephysicalactof
broadcasting .1.18.Itisthereforeobligedtoobservetheprinciples
establishedbytheCourt'sjudgementof6October1982
incase262/81—Coditel(ECR3401and3402):
«15.However,themerefactthattheownerofthe
copyrightinafilmhasgrantedtoasole
licenseetheexclusiverighttoexhibitthatfilm
intheterritoryofaMemberStateand,conse­
quently,toprohibit,duringaspecificperiod,
itsshowingbyothers,isnotsufficienttojus­
tifythefindingthatsuchacontractmustbe
regardedasthepurpose,themeansorthe
resultofanagreement,decisionorconcerted
practiceprohibitedbytheTreaty.
16.Thecharacteristics ofthecinematographic
industryandofitsmarketsintheCommunity,
especiallythoserelatingtodubbingandsub­

NoC98/46 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 21.4.92
2.2.3.However,thereisanexceptiontothisrule
whentheplacewherethedecisionistakenisina
non-Member Statebutthetransmission ismadeina
MemberState.Iftheabovementioned ruleweretobe
retainedinthisparticularcase,itwouldleadtothe
applicationofthelawinforceinacountrywhichwas
notobligedtoobservetheDirectiveandmighttherefore
havealessstringentcopyrightlaw.2.2.11.1.Itwouldseemlogicaltoassumethatcom­
municationgenerallytakesplaceatthebroadcaster's
headquartersforthatiswherethedecision-making
powersareandwherethedecisionisnormallytaken
onprogrammecontent—oneofthetwoelements
involvedincommunication tothepublic.
2.2.12.Thefifteenthrecitalspecifiesthat'inarriving
attheamountofthepaymenttobemadefortherights
acquiredthepartiesshouldtakeaccountoftheactual
orpotentialaudiencethroughouttheareainwhichthe
broadcastcanbereceived'.Thisisalsostatedinpoint6
oftheexplanatorymemorandum .2.2.4.Thisbeingso,MemberStatesarefreetolay
downspecificrulesandtodecide,forexample,thatthe
countrywherethefinaltransmissiontothesatellite
takesplace,i.e.thecountryofinput,istoberegarded
asthecountrywherecommunication tothepublictakes
placeifthesignalcomesfromanon-MemberState.
2.2.5.Themeaningof'contentoftheprogramme­
carryingsignals'oughttobeexplained.2.2.13.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthisisnotthe
onlypointtobeborneinmindandthatconsideration
shouldalsobegiventotheprotectedwork'strans­
missiontime,theoverallrevenuefromtheexploitation
oftheworksprotectedbycopyright,etc.
2.2.14.Thesepointsareallveryimportantforthey
specifyhowtodeterminethefinancialcompensation
fortheauthorizations issuedbyrightholders .2.2.6.IfitmeanstheTVchannel'sprogrammesas
awhole,itisclearthat,asageneralrule,thelegal
persondecidingsuchmattersisalsotheonewhodecides
abouttheactofbroadcasting .Inthiscase,thetaking
ofthesedecisionsbyoneandthesamepersondoesnot
poseanyproblems. 2.2.15.Theseprovisionsarenottobefoundany­
whereinthebodyoftheDirective.
2.2.16.Theomissionmayallowcertainuserstoput
pressureonlegislatorsintheircountriestotake
measureswhichwillundermineorthwartthesepro­
visions.2.2.7.Itwouldbedifferentifcontentmeansthe
contentofeachoftheprogrammestransmittedbythe
TVchannel.Inthiscasethedecisiononcontentis
takenbytheprogrammeproducerwho,itistrue,may
beinchargeofthechannelbutwhomayequallybean
independentproducerorthepersoninchargeof
anotherprogramme-producing channel.Inthiscase,
thedecision-taking issplit.
2.2.8.Thissplitwillbemoreseriousifthetwo
decisionsregardingprogrammecontentandbroadcast­
ingactaretakenindifferentcountries.2.2.17.Thetransmissionofprogrammesviadirect
broadcastingsatelliteisonlysubjecttoanauthorization
bytherightownersinthebroadcastingcountryandnot
bytherightownersinthecountriesofreception[doc.
COM(91)276final,point14,page11].Consequently ,
thelinewhichshouldbetakenisthattherelevantact
ofuseforcopyrightpurposesinthetransmissionof
programmesviadirectsatellitetakesplaceinthebroad­
castingcountryandnotinallthosecountriesinwhich
theprogrammesignalsaredirectlyreceivable [doc.
COM(91)276final,point15,pages11-12].2.2.9.Underthesecircumstances itwouldseemthat
thefirstmeaninglistedaboveoughttobechosenfor
'contentoftheprogramme-carrying signals'.However,
thisshouldbespecifiedinordertodispelalldoubts.2.2.18.Thepartieshavethetaskofdefiningthemain
areasofreceptionbyagreement.
2.3.Article1c):Cableretransmission2.2.10.Article1(b)statesattheendthat'thereis
nocommunication tothepublicbysatellite,however,
ifthereisanyinterruptionofthechainofbroadcasting
equipmentbetweenthepointwhereasingledecisionis
takenandthetransmissionoftherelevantsignalsfrom
thesatellite'.2.3.1.Does'unalteredretransmission 'make
adequateallowanceforthefactthatitispossibleto
transmitprogrammesincode?TheCommitteethinks
thatcodedprogrammesshouldalsobesubjecttothe
Directive.Theamplificationofsignalsshouldalsobe
regardedas'unalteredtransmission'.2.2.11.Theproposaldoesnotspecifywherecom­
municationtothepublictakesplacewhenthetrans­
missionfinallygoesaheadaftertheinterruption .

NoC98/47 21.4.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities
2.4.Article1d):Broadcasting 2.6.3.2.Forthereasonsgivenin2.6.1and2.6.2the
CommitteeproposesthatArticle3(1)beamendedas
follows:
'MemberStatesshallensurethattheauthorization
ofauthorsandtheholdersofneighbouringrights
providedforinthischapteroncommunication to
thepublicbysatellitemaybeacquiredonlyby
agreement.'2.4.1.Therearegroundsforaskingwhetherthedefi­
nitiondoesnotcontradictArticles11and11bisofthe
BerneConvention .
2.4.2.Thisisbecausetransmissionbywireisre­
gardedasapublicperformancecoveredbyArticle11,
whereastransmissionovertheairisregardedasanact
ofbroadcastingandassuchiscoveredbyArticlellbis.
Thereforethereisacaseforaskingwhetherthewords
'bywire'shouldnotbedeletedsoastoavoidany
conflictwiththeBerneConvention .
2.5.Article2:Broadcastingright
2.5.1.'Rightsofauthors'orsimply'authors'would
beabettertitle,fittinginwiththetitlesforArticle4
'Performers'andArticle6'Broadcastingorganizations'.
2.6.Article3:Acquisitionofbroadcastingrights2.7.Article4:Performers
2.7.1.Itshouldbestatedthatneighbouringrights
aretobewithoutprejudicetotherightsofauthorsand
thatnoprovisionintheDirectiveistobeinterpreted
insuchawayastolimittheexerciseofcopyrightby
owners{cf.Art.1ofthe1961RomeConvention).
2.7.2.TheCommittee subscribestotheCom­
mission'sviewthatinorderthatperformers'rightswith
regardtopubliccommunication bysatellitearenot
deprivedofsubstance,itisnecessarytoincludeafix­
ationrightandareproductionrightintheDirective
[doc.COM(91)276final—SYN358,explanatorymem­
orandum,partII,point20].TheCommitteewonders,
however,howArticle4standsinrelationtotherights
laiddowninChapterIIoftheDirectiveonrentalrights,
lendingrightandoncertainrightsrelatedtocopyright
[doc.CC)M(90)586—SYN319](*)inwhichtherequi­
siteharmonization oftheprimaryrightsofperformers,
broadcastingorganizationsandproducersofphono­
gramsisdealtwithdifferently .TheCommitteethinks
thatthetwoproposalsshouldbebroughtmoreinto
linewitheachother.
2.7.3.QuestionshavebeenraisedwithintheCom­
mitteeontheCommission'sexplanationsinpartIIof
theexplanatorymemorandum (Art.4,point21)in
relationtotheDirectiveonrentalright,lendingright
andoncertainrightsrelatedtocopyright [doc.
CC)M(90)586—SYN319].Itwouldseemfrompoint
21thattheCommission doesnotwishtointerferein
thelegislationinforceinmanyMemberStates,under
whichaperformerisusuallypresumedtohaveassigned
hisrightstothefilmproducer.Sucharulegenerally
doesnotguaranteethatperformers (andartists)receive
adequateremuneration whichtakesaccountofhow
andonwhatscaletheworkislaterexploited.However,
sincesuchguaranteesaretobefoundintheDirective
onlendingright,etc.,closerconsideration shouldbe
giventothismatter—theCommitteethinks—whenthe
twoDirectivesarebroughtintolinewitheachother.2.6.1.TheCommitteethinksthattheword'right'in
Article3(1)doesnotmeansomuchtherightitself
referredtoinArticle2astheauthorization whichcan
begivenonthebasisofthatright.Hence'authorization
stemmingfromtherightlaiddowninArticle2'should
besubstitutedfor'right'.
2.6.2.Approvalisgiventotheprinciplethatthe
righttobroadcastbysatellitemaybeacquiredonlyby
agreement.Thiswillhelptostrengthencopyrightby
outlawingstatutorylicensingsystems.
2.6.3.Itwouldappearfromtheexplanatorymemor­
andum(partI,points35and36onpages22-23and
partII,point15onpage37)thattheCommissionthinks
thattheprinciplelaiddowninArticle3(1)shouldapply
ingeneral,thatistobothauthorsandtheholdersof
neighbouringrights.However,thisisnotimmediately
clearfromArticle3(1)ortheensuingprovisions.In
ordertoeliminatethisdiscrepancy,Article3(1)
should—intheCommittee'sview—refernotonlyto
authorsasrightholdersbutalsototheholdersofneigh­
bouringrights. 2.8.Article5:Remunerationfortheuseofphono­
grams
2.8.1.TheCommitteethinksthattheharmonizing
effectoftheprovisioncontainedinArticle5isbound2.6.3.1.Theexplanatorymemorandum statesquite
rightlyinpoint15that'theonlylawwhichwouldapply
tothebroadcastofatelevisionorradioprogrammeby
satellitewouldbethatoftheMemberStateinwhicha
singledecisionistakenonthecontentandtransmission
oftheprogramme-bearing signals'. (!)OJNoC53,28.2.1991,p.35.

NoC98/48 21.4.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities
mayberecognizedasauthorsinonecountrywhere
thereisprimarybroadcasting bysatellitebutnotin
anotherwithcabledistribution .
2.10.2.Thesestatutorylicencesshouldremainposs­
ibleinexceptionalcaseswheretheyareneededinthe
publicinterestandsatisfactorycontractualsolutions
cannotbeachieved.tobeminimalgiventhatMemberStatesaretohavea
largefreedomofchoicewithregardtorightholders .In
addition,thepresentwordingofArticle5doesno
justicetotheviewthatperformersandproducersof
phonogramsshouldberegardedascompletelyequal
holdersofneighbouringrights.
2.8.2.Referenceshouldbemadeinthisconnectionto
Article5(2)oftheCouncilofEurope'sDraftEuropean
Conventionrelatingtoquestionsoncopyrightlawand
neighbouringrightsintheframeworkofthetransfron­
tierbroadcastingbysatellite[CDMM(91 )43],inwhich
bothgroupsaresaidtote(original)'rightholder'.
2.8.3.TheCommittee,too,wouldpreferboth
groupstoberightholdersforthepurposeofthe'single
equitableremuneration'.Accordinglyaprovisioncould
beaddedstipulatingthatthisremunerationshouldbe
sharedequallybetweenbothgroupsofrightholders .2.11.Article11:Exerciseofthecableretransmission
right
2.9.Article7:Limitationsonrights2.11.1.TheCommitteesupportstheideathatthe
righttoauthorizeorprohibittheretransmission ofa
broadcastbycablemustbeexercisedthroughacol­
lectingsociety.However,itwouldquestionArticle
11(2),readinconjunctionwithpoint36intheexplana­
torymemorandum .TheESCagreesthatarightholder
whohasnottransferredthemanagementofthisrights
toacollectingsocietyshouldbeentitled,whenhiswork
isbroadcast,tohaveaclaimtocompensationonthe
collectingsocietywhichmanagesrightsofthesame
category,albeitwiththeclaimbeinglimitedtothesum
whichtherightholderwouldhavereceivedifhehad
authorizedthecollectingsocietytoexercisehisrights.
2.11.2.Forthesakeofclarityitshouldbespecified
thattheindividualright/ownerhasnolegalremedy
againstthecablenetworkoperator.2.9.1.Article7,paragraph 1
2.9.1.1.ThetextallowsMemberStatestoauthorize
aderogationtotheprotectionprovidedinArticles4to
6inthecaseof'usesolelyforpurposesofteachingor
scientificresearch'.
2.9.1.2.Withoutwishingtoprejudicesuchuse,
allowanceshouldalsobemadeforthefactthatthereare
agoodmanyprivateandmainlycommercialteaching
establishments whichrunexpensivevocationaltraining
courses.Itshouldalsobeborneinmindthatthis
derogationwouldexcludeeducationalbroadcastscom­
pletelyfromthescopeoftheDirective.Thisisnot
acceptable .2.12.Article12:Exerciseofthecableretransmission
rightbybroadcastingorganizations
2.12.1.Article12stipulatesthattheobligationtouse
acollectingsocietyisnottoapplytotherightsexercised
byabroadcastingorganizationinrespectofitsown
transmissions .
2.9.2.Article7,paragraph 2
2.12.2.Authorsandcollectingsocietiescouldsuffer
asaresultofthis.
2.9.2.1.TheprovisioninArticle7(2)istakenword
forwordfromArticle15(2)ofthe1961RomeConven­
tion.However,therewouldappeartobenoneedto
incorporatethelastsentenceregardingcompulsory
licences.Itisalsonotclearhowthisprovisionrelates
toArticle3(1)whichstatesthatauthorizationmaybe
acquiredonlybyagreement .2.12.3.Insomecountriescreatorsoftentransfertheir
copyrighttoTVchannelsandnottocollectingsocieties.
Consequently ,whenTVchannelsauthorizeacable
networktotransmittheirprogrammes,theyarealso
givingitownershipofthecopyright.
2.10.Article10:Cableretransmission right 2.13.Article13:Generalcontracts
2.10.1.ProblemswillbecausedifMemberStatesare
tobefreetodefinewhoisanauthor.Asaresultsome
ofthecontributorstotheproductionofaprogramme2.13.1.Point39intheexplanatorymemorandum
statesthatthepurposeofthisprovisionistoencourage
rightownersandcableoperatorstoregulatethecable

21.4.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC98/49
retransmission ofoneormorebroadcastsbyoneor
morecableoperatorsinasinglegeneralcontract.Point
39statesfurtherthat'thepartieswouldconcludesuch
generalcontractsfreely',whilepoint40statesthat'this
doesnotmeanthattheothersidecouldberequiredto
actcollectively'.
2.13.2.Itshouldbemadeclearthatthereisnoobli­
gationtoengageincollectivenegotiationsandconclude
collectiveagreements .
2.14.Article15:Preventionoftheabuseofnegotiating
positions
2.14.1.ThetextofArticle15isvagueandimprecise.
Thepreambleandtheexplanatorymemorandum do
notprovidesufficientclarification .
2.14.2.Itisstatedthatthepurposeisnottoforce'the
partiesconcernedtoconcludeanagreement'(page5of
thesummary),nortotakeaway'fromtheexclusive
characterofcabletransmissionrights'(page25ofthe
explanatorymemorandum ),nortocallintoquestion
'thecontractualnatureoftheacquisitionofcablerights'
(twenty-second recital).2.14.3.Accordingtopoint42ofpartIIofthe
explanatorymemorandum (page46)thepurposeisalso
nottoobligethepartiestoreachanagreementorto
fixthecompensation duebuttopreventoneofthe
partiesfromtakinga'position(which)caninnoway
bejustifiedbythecircumstances'.Thiswouldbethe
caseifaparty'refusedabsolutelytoenterintonego­
tiation'orifapurportedofferwasinnoway'based
onrationalelements'oragainif'animproperlyhigh
orlowlevelofconsideration 'wasproposed.
2.14.4.TheDirectiveshouldgrantMemberStates
powersofinterventionifnoagreementcanbereached.
2.14.5.Thedistinctionbetweentheverificationthat
theleveloftheproposedconsideration isnot
'improperlyhighorlow'andthefixingoftheconsider­
ationbyathirdpartyintheeventofdisagreement is
likelytorevivethesystemofobligatoryarbitrationin
anunofficialandroundaboutway,eventhoughthe
Commissionexpresslystatesthatitdoesnotwishto
'putoverideasalreadyrejectedinthediscussionofthe
'TelevisionWithoutFrontiers'GreenPaperandthe
subsequentlyadoptedDirective'(point5inpartIof
theexplanatorymemorandum ).
DoneatBrussels,26February1992.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
MichaelGEUENICH