Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08: Order of the President of the Court of 16 December 2009 (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) (United Kingdom)) — 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), Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd (C-429/08) (References for a preliminary ruling — Application to participate in the proceedings — Rejection)
Date: 2009-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: audiovisual industry, copyright, data transmission, interpretation of the law, ordinance, professional sport








C_2010100EN.01001002.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/10





Order of the President of the Court of 16 December 2009 (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) (United Kingdom)) — 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), Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd (C-429/08)
(Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Application to participate in the proceedings - Rejection)
2010/C 100/15
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


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

Defendants: 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:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division; High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Interpretation of Articles 28, 30, 49 and 81 EC and 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), 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 interpretation 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, for consideration, 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







1.


The applications to participate in the proceedings, submitted respectively by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), British Sky Broadcasting Ltd, Setanta Sports Sàrl and The Motion Picture Association, are rejected.










2.


There is no need to rule on costs.






(1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.