EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/2

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 October 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, and the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)) — Football Association Premier League Ltd, NetMed Hellas SA, Multichoice Hellas SA v QC Leisure, David Richardson, AV Station plc, Malcolm Chamberlain, Michael Madden, SR Leisure Ltd, Philip George Charles Houghton, Derek Owen (C-403/08) and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd (C-429/08)

(Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08) (1)

(Satellite broadcasting - Broadcasting of football matches - Reception of the broadcast by means of satellite decoder cards - Satellite decoder cards lawfully placed on the market in one Member State and used in another Member State - Prohibition on marketing and use in a Member State - Visualisation of broadcasts in disregard of the exclusive rights granted - Copyright - Television broadcasting right - Exclusive licences to broadcast in a single Member State - Freedom to provide services - Article 56 TFEU - Competition - Article 101 TFEU - Restriction of competition by object - Protection of services based on conditional access - Illicit device - Directive 98/84/EC - Directive 2001/29/EC - Reproduction of works within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen - Exception to the reproduction right - Communication of works to the public in public houses - Directive 93/83/EEC)

2011/C 347/02

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, and High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimants/appellant: Football Association Premier League Ltd, NetMed Hellas SA, Multichoice Hellas SA (Case C-403/08), Karen Murphy (C-429/08)

Defendants/respondent: QC Leisure, David Richardson, AV Station plc, Malcolm Chamberlain, Michael Madden, SR Leisure Ltd, Philip George Charles Houghton, Derek Owen (C-403/08), Media Protection Services Ltd (C-429/08)

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice, Chancery Division and Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Interpretation of Articles 28, 30, 49 and 81 EC, of Articles 2(a) and (e), 4(a) and 5 of Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access (OJ 1998 L 320, p. 54), of Articles 2, 3 and 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10, corrigendum at OJ 2002 L 6, p. 70), of Article 1(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), and of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable transmission (OJ 1993 L 248, p. 15) — Grant, in return for remuneration, of exclusive rights in respect of satellite broadcasting of football matches — Marketing, in the United Kingdom, of decoders lawfully placed on the market in another Member State, making it possible to screen such matches in breach of the exclusive rights granted

Operative part of the judgment

1. ‘Illicit device’ within the meaning of Article 2(e) of Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access must be interpreted as not covering foreign decoding devices (devices which give access to the satellite broadcasting services of a broadcaster, are manufactured and marketed with that broadcaster’s authorisation, but are used, in disregard of its will, outside the geographical area for which they have been issued), foreign decoding devices procured or enabled by the provision of a false name and address or foreign decoding devices which have been used in breach of a contractual limitation permitting their use only for private purposes.

2. Article 3(2) of Directive 98/84 does not preclude national legislation which prevents the use of foreign decoding devices, including those procured or enabled by the provision of a false name and address or those used in breach of a contractual limitation permitting their use only for private purposes, since such legislation does not fall within the field coordinated by that directive.

3. On a proper construction of Article 56 TFEU: — that article precludes legislation of a Member State which makes it unlawful to import into and sell and use in that State foreign decoding devices which give access to an encrypted satellite broadcasting service from another Member State that includes subject-matter protected by the legislation of that first State; — this conclusion is affected neither by the fact that the foreign decoding device has been procured or enabled by the giving of a false identity and a false address, with the intention of circumventing the territorial restriction in question, nor by the fact that it is used for commercial purposes although it was restricted to private use.

4. The clauses of an exclusive licence agreement concluded between a holder of intellectual property rights and a broadcaster constitute a restriction on competition prohibited by Article 101 TFEU where they oblige the broadcaster not to supply decoding devices enabling access to that right holder’s protected subject-matter with a view to their use outside the territory covered by that licence agreement.

5. Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the reproduction right extends to transient fragments of the works within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen, provided that those fragments contain elements which are the expression of the authors’ own intellectual creation, and the unit composed of the fragments reproduced simultaneously must be examined in order to determine whether it contains such elements.

6. Acts of reproduction such as those at issue in Case C-403/08, which are performed within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen, fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 and may therefore be carried out without the authorisation of the copyright holders concerned.

7. ‘Communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as covering transmission of the broadcast works, via a television screen and speakers, to the customers present in a public house.

8. Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission must be interpreted as not having a bearing on the lawfulness of the acts of reproduction performed within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen.

(1) OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.