CELEX: 62001CC0245
Language: en
Date: 2003-05-22
Title: Opinion of Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 22 May 2003. # RTL Television GmbH v Niedersächsische Landesmedienanstalt für privaten Rundfunk. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht - Germany. # Directive 89/552/EEC - Article 11(3) - Television broadcasting - Television advertising - Advertising breaks in audiovisual works - Definition of series. # Case C-245/01.

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALJACOBS delivered on 22 May 2003(1)
         Case C-245/01  RTL Television GmbHv Niedersächsische Landesmedienanstalt für privaten Rundfunk 
            ()
            
      
         
      1.  In these proceedings, the Court is asked by the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Lower Saxony Higher Administrative
      Court) to interpret the scope of Article 11(3) 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  
      
         			(2)
         		 (hereinafter the ‘Television Directive' or the ‘Directive') as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and
      of the Council of 30 June 1997.  
      
         			(3)
         		  That provision regulates the frequency with which advertising interruptions are permitted during the course of feature films
      and films made for television.  It imposes a longer duration between such interruptions than is required in the case of other
      programmes.  Series and serials are, however, expressly excluded from the application of Article 11(3).
      
      2.  The questions referred to the Court raise two issues.  The first is whether Article 11(3) of the Directive applies to films
      made for television which have from the outset been designed for the insertion of advertising interruptions.  The second concerns
      the criteria which must be satisfied for the broadcast of several films made for television to be classified as a series so
      as to take them outside the ambit of Article 11(3).
       Legal framework
       Community law
      
      3.  The Television Directive was adopted on 3 October 1989 and its provisions were to be implemented by 3 October 1991.  It was
      amended by Directive 97/36 of 30 June 1997 which was to be implemented by 31 December 1998.  Although the litigation in the
      present case commenced before the latter directive was adopted, the order for reference was not made until June 2001 and is
      accordingly phrased in terms of both directives.  Article 1(13) of the latter directive amended Article 11 of the Directive,
      but left intact those parts of that provision which are of relevance to the present case.
      
      4.  The Directive has as its primary purpose to facilitate the free movement of television broadcasts within the Community by
      introducing a framework of common rules which all Member States must, as a minimum, apply to the broadcasters under their
      jurisdiction.  
      
         			(4)
         		  The common rules include provisions governing television advertising, sponsorship and teleshopping, which are contained
      in Chapter IV of the Directive (Articles 10 to 20).
      
      5.  Article 11 contains rules relating to the frequency of advertising breaks.
      
      6.  Article 11(1) permits advertisements to be inserted during as well as between programmes provided that the conditions specified
      in paragraphs 2 to 5 of that Article are fulfilled, in such a way that ‘the integrity and the value of the programme, taking
      into account natural breaks in and the duration and nature of the programme, and the rights of the rights holders are not
      prejudiced'.
      
      7.  Article 11(4) lays down the general rule (hereinafter ‘the general rule') that a period of at least 20 minutes should elapse
      between each successive advertising break within a programme.  Article 11(3) provides for a special rule in respect of ‘the
      transmission of audiovisual works such as feature films and films made for television' (hereinafter ‘the special rule'). 
      Those types of work, provided their scheduled duration is more than 45 minutes, may be interrupted once for each period of
      45 minutes.  A further interruption is allowed if their scheduled duration is at least 20 minutes longer than two or more
      complete periods of 45 minutes.  However, Article 11(3) also stipulates an exclusion from the special rule (hereinafter ‘the
      exclusion'), in any event in so far as it applies to films for television.  The exclusion encompasses ‘series, serials, light
      entertainment programmes and documentaries', with the consequence that those types of work are subject to the general rule.
      
      
      8.  The object of Article 11 emerges in part from the 27th recital of the preamble to the Directive which states that ‘in order
      to ensure that the interests of consumers as television viewers are fully and properly protected, it is essential for television
      advertising to be subject to a certain number of minimum rules and standards …'.
      
      9.  The Directive is closely modelled on the European Convention on Transfrontier Television, adopted within the Council of Europe
      shortly before the Directive was enacted, work on both instruments having proceeded simultaneously.  Article 14 of the Convention
      is for present purposes identical to Article 11 of the Directive.
      
      10.  The European Council, meeting at Rhodes on 2 and 3 December 1988, indicated the importance of deploying the Community's efforts
      in a manner consistent with the Council of Europe Convention.  
      
         			(5)
         		  The Convention also finds mention in the fourth recital of the preamble to the Directive.  The Convention is accompanied
      by an Explanatory Report which has been cited by the Court of Justice as an aid to the interpretation of the Directive.  
      
         			(6)
         		
      11.  The Explanatory Report states (at paragraph 245) that Article 14 of the Convention aims to establish a reasonable balance
      between the financial interests of the broadcaster and advertiser, on the one hand, and the interests of viewers, authors
      and creators of programmes, on the other hand. 
      
      12.  It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the provisions of Article 11 seek to achieve a balance between a number of potentially
      conflicting interests:  those of viewers, of broadcasters, or advertisers on whom broadcasting is financially dependent, and
      of the makers of the programmes.  
      
         			(7)
         		
      13.  Some confusion has arisen in the present proceedings concerning the terms ‘series' and ‘serial' as those terms appear in the
      exclusion, and in particular concerning the term ‘Reihe' which occurs in the German-language version of the exclusion and
      in the questions referred by the national court.  If one compares the word order of the German-language version (‘Serien,
      Reihen …') with the English and French versions (‘series, serials …'; ‘séries, feuilletons …'), it would seem that ‘Reihe'
      corresponds to ‘serial' in the English version and to ‘feuilleton' in the French version, and that the German term ‘Serie'
      corresponds to ‘series' in the English version and to ‘série' in the French version.
      
      14.  It seems, however, that, correctly understood, the term ‘Reihe' has a broader scope than ‘Serie', as indeed is suggested by
      the terms of the questions referred by the national court, and that ‘Reihe' in fact corresponds to the English ‘series' and
      to the French ‘série'.
      
      15.  In any event, what is necessary for present purposes in construing the exclusion is to determine in what circumstances several
      audiovisual works will be sufficiently linked to constitute a series or serial and therefore to fall within the exclusion.
       Provided that the outer limits of those two concepts are made clear, it does not seem to me necessary to arrive at a precise
      demarcation of the line between the two, especially given that they appear, in at least some language versions, to be imprecise
      and overlapping in their meanings. 
       European Convention on Human Rights
      
      16.  Article 10 of the Convention has been cited in the course of the proceedings.  It reads as follows:‘1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.  This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and
      impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.  This article shall not
      prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 
      2.  The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
      conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests
      of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection
      of health of morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information
      received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.' 
      
      
       National law
      
      17.  In Germany, broadcasting is within the competence of the German Länder, rather than of the federal government.  A coordinated
      approach to broadcasting regulation is secured by an agreement amongst the Länder (the Rundfunksstaatsvertrag).  In Lower
      Saxony, television regulation is contained in the State Broadcasting Law (Niedersächsisches Landesrundfunkgesetz).  Both the
      Rundfunkstaatsvertrag and the State Broadcasting Law contain provisions which are in all relevant respects substantially identical
      to Article 11(1), (3) and (4) of the Directive.
       Factual background and questions referred
      
      18.  In the proceedings before the national court, the plaintiff, RTL Television GmbH (hereinafter ‘RTL') seeks the annulment of
      a decision dated 12 November 1993, taken by the Landesrundfunkausschuss (Lower Saxony Broadcasting Board, hereinafter ‘the
      Board') which was at that time the body responsible for the regulation of private television channels in the state of Lower
      Saxony, but which has since been replaced in that role by the defendant, the Niedersächsische Landesmedienanstalt für privaten
      Rundfunk (hereinafter ‘the NLM').
      
      19.  The contested decision concerned certain films broadcast and to be broadcast by RTL.  The films in question were made for
      television and were grouped together into a sequence, under the title of ‘Great Television Stories', comprising various thematic
      categories, which were in their turn given such titles as ‘Family Fortunes', ‘Dangerous Liaisons' and ‘Fateful Encounters'.
       They were specifically designed to incorporate advertising interruptions at the frequency permitted under the general rule.
      
      20.  The Board held that, despite RTL's attempts to group the films in question, they could not be considered to form part of a
      ‘series' (Reihe) because the individual broadcasts lacked any identity of content in the form of a shared plot structure or
      common characters.  As a consequence, they fell within the provisions of national law implementing the special rule and could
      therefore be interrupted less frequently than the general rule provides.
      
      21.  RTL brought proceedings in which it challenged the validity of the Board's decision on various grounds, one of which was that
      the Board's interpretation of ‘series' (Reihe) failed to accord with the correct meaning of that term as a matter of Community
      law.  RTL argued that for a number of works to constitute a ‘series', it was sufficient if they were characterised both by
      criteria of content, such as film genre, similarity of script and similarity of theme, and by criteria of external form, such
      as length of broadcast and broadcasting slot, and various other factors, for example a particular director.  
      
      22.  On that definition, RTL claimed, ‘Great Television Stories' amounted to a series and therefore fell within the exclusion rather
      than the special rule.  As regards content, the films which comprised it were distinguished by similarity of theme.  This
      was reflected in a uniform basic structure in which there was always a central character as the focal point of each film who
      as the plot progressed had to overcome an extreme life situation, closely related to reality and the present day.  The films
      were also accorded a fixed broadcasting slot, the length of each broadcast being roughly the same.
      
      23.  Having failed at first instance, RTL appealed to the Oberverwaltungsgericht.  Although the Oberverwaltungsgericht is inclined
      to share the interpretation of ‘series' (Reihe) adopted by the Board, it recognises that the question is one of Community
      law, and has decided to stay the proceedings before it and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice:‘(1) Does Article 11(3) 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) as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 (OJ
      1997 L 202, p. 60), by restricting advertising breaks, pursue the objective of protecting the artistic value of feature films
      and films made for television, irrespective of whether films made for television have from the outset been produced for television
      and provided with breaks designed for the insertion of advertising spots? 
      (2) What criteria must be satisfied for a broadcast of several feature films and films made for television to be classified as
      a series, derogating from the advertising restrictions for feature films and films made for television? 
      
      (3) Are broadcasts consisting of several parts which manifest a common concept due to common features of theme, content and form,
      and which are broadcast at connected times, to be regarded as a series for the purposes of Article 11(3) of Directive 89/552/EEC
      as amended by Directive 97/36/EC? 
      
      (4) Does the interpretation of the term series for the purposes of Article 11(3) of Directive 89/552/EEC as amended by Directive
      97/36/EC permit common points of theme or content of the episodes to be wholly or largely regarded as unnecessary and predominantly
      points of form or form of reception taken as the criterion?' 
      
      
      
      24.  The first question therefore concerns the scope of the special rule itself, and more precisely whether films made for television
      fall within it even when designed to incorporate advertising slots.  The remaining questions are concerned with the scope
      of the exclusion.  They seek clarification of the criteria for determining whether several films constitute a series.  In
      particular, they are aimed at establishing whether the films in question must be linked by a close connection of content or
      whether a shared general theme and/or formal points in common are sufficient.
      
      25.  The Court received written submissions from RTL, the NLM, the United Kingdom Government and the Commission, all of which,
      with the exception of the United Kingdom Government, were represented at the hearing.
       Assessment
       The first question
      
      26.  By its first question, the referring court wishes in essence to know whether, in the light of the objectives pursued by the
      special rule, that rule extends to films made for television which have, from the outset, been designed for the insertion
      of advertising breaks.
      
      27.  RTL submits that the regulation of advertising constitutes a restriction of the producer's and broadcaster's fundamental rights
      to freedom of expression and artistic freedom, rights which are enshrined in the general principles of the Community legal
      order.  Accordingly, in order to be compatible with Community primary law, the regulation of advertising in the Television
      Directive must be shown to be appropriate, necessary and proportionate to the achievement of a legitimate objective.
      
      28.  RTL accepts that the protection of the artistic integrity of films is capable of constituting a legitimate goal justifying
      the restriction of fundamental rights but only in so far as it contributes to the realisation of the rights of ‘others' in
      the sense of the second paragraph of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  RTL concludes that, in the present
      context, the ‘others' must be understood as the creators of the films the integrity of which is being protected.
      
      29.  RTL therefore asserts that if the creator of a film can be shown to have intended it to be interrupted more frequently than
      the special rule provides, there is no longer any legitimate purpose for applying the special rule in restriction of fundamental
      rights.  Such a restriction would not be permissible in order to protect the rights of the work's creator, given that it would
      run directly counter to the creator's own wishes.  It would also compromise the pluralism of the audiovisual media, given
      that the postfinancing of films depends on the ability of broadcasters to insert advertising breaks more frequently than the
      special rule allows.
      
      30.  RTL concludes that, where possible, Community legislation should be interpreted in such a way as to ensure its conformity
      with fundamental rights, and that accordingly, the special rule is to be construed as only applying to films in so far as
      that is the wish of the films' creators, whose rights go to justify that rule.
      
      31.  By contrast, the United Kingdom Government, the Commission, the referring court and the NLM all consider that the special
      rule should extend to films made for television whether or not they have been made to incorporate advertising breaks. 
      
      32.  I am not convinced by RTL's submissions on the first question.
      
      33.  Considering first the text of Article 11(3) of the Directive, it seems to me to be entirely unambiguous as regards the current
      question.  As the Commission points out, the special rule which that provision lays down is clearly stated to apply to films
      made for television as well as to feature films, and makes no distinction on the basis of whether a film made for television
      was designed to incorporate advertising breaks.
      
      34.  The meaning suggested by the text of Article 11(3) is confirmed when reference is made to the legislative history of Directive
      97/36, which introduced that provision in its present form.  As the United Kingdom Government, the Commission and the referring
      court note, the Commission's original proposal to amend the Television Directive proposed to remove films made for television
      from the special rule.  In an explanatory memorandum the Commission explained the proposed amendment partly on the basis that
      ‘films made for television can, from the outset, have natural breaks built in allowing advertising spots to be inserted without
      detracting from the integrity of the work', whereas ‘there are no planned advertising breaks' in films made for cinema.  
      
         			(8)
         		  The rejection of the Commission's proposed amendment during the legislative process tends to support the notion that the
      special rule is intended, as its wording indicates, to encompass all films for television without the distinction for which
      RTL contends.
      
      35.  As the Commission notes, the interpretation proposed by RTL would render the special rule entirely optional in the case of
      films made for television, its application dependent upon the intentions of the producers of such films.  That interpretation
      would therefore in effect accomplish the amendment to Article 11(3) proposed by the Commission but rejected by the Community
      legislature.
      
      36.  Nor do the objects pursued by the special rule suggest any need to depart from its clear and unambiguous wording by reading
      into it an additional exclusion for television films designed to incorporate advertising breaks.  In the light of the 24th
      recital to the Directive, and of the Explanatory Report to the Television Convention, the special rule contained in Article
      11(3) can be understood not only to serve the interests of the creators of audiovisual works but also to protect the consumers
      of those works against excessive advertising in the context of films for television, an aim which would apply equally to films
      designed to incorporate advertising breaks.
      
      37.  The question remains whether such an interpretation of the special rule would, as RTL claims, constitute an unjustified infringement
      of the fundamental rights enshrined in the general principles of Community law.
      
      38.  I am not convinced that the regulation of television advertising will necessarily and in all cases involve a restriction on
      the fundamental rights of broadcasters and producers to freedom of expression and artistic freedom.  Even assuming, however,
      that the special rule does constitute a restriction of those rights which therefore needs to be justified, I consider that
      RTL is wrong to assume that the only interest capable of justifying it is that of the creators of the films at issue.  In
      my view, it is equally legitimate to have regard to the interests of viewers as consumers.  The special rule can therefore
      be defended on the basis that it serves to protect viewers against excessive advertising.
      
      39.  In its submissions on the remaining questions referred, RTL explicitly acknowledges the possibility that the special rule
      might be defended by reference to such a purpose, but argues that, at least if it were given a broad interpretation and if
      its exclusion were narrowly construed, the special rule would not constitute a proportionate method of furthering that purpose.
       For reasons which I explain below, I do not accept that the special rule is disproportionate when interpreted in the manner
      which I propose. 
       The second, third and fourth questions
      
      40.  The remaining questions referred all concern what criteria should be applied to determine whether a given work constitutes
      a ‘series' for the purposes of Article 11(3) of the Directive.
      
      41.  RTL submits that the term ‘series' is ambiguous, not receiving any clear definition in the Directive, and not having any clear
      and consistent meaning across the various language versions of the Directive.  It must therefore be interpreted according
      to its context and to the objectives of the Directive, and so as to avoid any restriction of the fundamental rights enshrined
      in the general principles of Community law.  RTL submits that each such method of interpretation points in favour of a broad
      interpretation of ‘series', whereby several works will constitute a series when they are broadcast at a fixed time, and are
      bound together by other formal and conceptual criteria, and by a general common theme, as in the case of ‘Great Television
      Stories'.
      
      42.  In RTL's view, a contextual interpretation of ‘series' suggests that, in order to avoid rendering that term redundant, it
      should be given a definition which sufficiently differentiates it from ‘serial'.  The exclusion would not have contained both
      terms unless they were intended to convey different meanings.  The former term should not therefore entail such a close connection
      between its various component parts as is required by the latter concept.  According to RTL, whereas a serial requires a unity
      of action, place and persons, a series will exist according to the more general criteria set out in the preceding paragraph.
      
      43.  RTL argues further that the purposes of the Directive militate in favour of a broad interpretation of ‘series'.  It points,
      first, to the Directive's primary objective of promoting the free movement of services.  It suggests that advertising restrictions
      which are too severe run counter to that objective.  Any ambiguity in those restrictions must therefore be interpreted in
      restrictive fashion.  Given that ‘series' forms part of the exclusion from the restriction represented by the special rule,
      it must accordingly be given the broad meaning contended for by RTL.
      
      44.  RTL also draws attention to the Directive's objective of promoting European audiovisual production, which is evident from
      the 19th, 20th and 22nd recitals of the preamble to the Directive.  By limiting the frequency of advertising breaks, the special
      rule undermines the capacity of broadcasters to recoup the costs entailed in producing films for television within Europe.
       By contrast, producers in the United States are better placed to recover the costs of producing films, given the more frequent
      advertising interruptions which they are permitted to make.
      
      45.  Lastly, RTL submits that there is no legitimate basis for construing the concept of ‘series' narrowly, and accordingly it
      must be given as broad as possible a reading in order to minimise the restriction of fundamental rights represented by the
      special rule.  A narrow interpretation of the concept would not be justified by the protection of the quality of audiovisual
      works, given the subjective nature of qualitative judgments and the need to avoid conferring the power to make such judgments
      upon the state in a pluralistic and democratic society.
      
      46.  Whilst RTL accepts that the protection of consumers could constitute a legitimate reason for imposing a restriction of the
      kind contained in the special rule, it considers that such a restriction is not a proportionate method of achieving that objective.
       Sufficient protection is assured to consumers by their freedom to choose between a variety of broadcasters.  If a particular
      broadcaster made provision for more advertising interruptions than consumers were prepared to accept, it would suffer from
      a corresponding reduction in its viewing figures.  However, should more protection be considered necessary for viewers, it
      would be sufficient to require broadcasters to indicate, when publishing their listings, the frequency with which advertising
      interruptions would occur, by analogy with the Court's case-law in the context of the free movement of goods.
      
      47.  The referring court, the Commission, the United Kingdom Government, and the NLM, all reject RTL's proposed interpretation
      of the concept of ‘series'.
      
      48.  I am equally unconvinced by RTL's submissions on the second, third and fourth questions referred.
      
      49.  I agree that the concept of a series is an imprecise one, as is that of a serial.  It seems to me, however, that a sufficiently
      clear delineation of the two concepts, as they are generally understood, can be given for the purposes of the present issue.
       From the observations which have been submitted, it seems that several audiovisual works must, in order to constitute a serial,
      be linked together by a continuing narrative of which they constitute episodes.  For several such works to constitute a series,
      they need to be linked either by a continuing narrative or to have characters (
       dramatis personae ) in common.  Connections of form, however, of the kind suggested by RTL, are neither necessary nor sufficient.
      
      50.  Such an approach also accords better, in my view, with the objectives pursued by Article 11(3) of the Directive than RTL's
      proposed interpretation.  As I have already stated in my analysis of the first question, I consider that the special rule
      can be understood to protect viewers against excessive advertising when viewing feature films and films made for television.
       The intention is clearly that viewers should enjoy a higher level of protection when watching those types of work than ordinary
      programmes, except in cases where the exclusion applies.  However the exclusion is interpreted, it must be given a meaning
      which would not entirely undermine the special rule itself.  As the Commission, the United Kingdom Government and NLM all
      note, RTL's understanding of ‘series' would allow broadcasters easily to evade the special rule by grouping together films
      made for television on the basis of vague and subjective general themes and by giving them a regular slot in the schedules.
       Only by requiring a link which is solidly related to content is it possible to avoid such an outcome, which cannot have been
      the intention underlying the exclusion.
      
      51.  Moreover, it seems to me reasonable to presume that films are singled out for special treatment in Article 11(3) because of
      the more sustained concentration required of viewers when both plot and characters must be developed during the course of
      a single and self-standing work, which would be unduly disrupted if advertising interruptions occurred with the frequency
      permitted by the general rule.  Such a rationale provides a further basis for interpreting series and serial as I have proposed.
       Those categories appear in the exclusion precisely because, where the narrative or the characters involved in a work are
      developed over the course of a number of parts, there is not the same need to preserve the sustained concentration of viewers
      by imposing greater limitations than normal upon the permitted frequency of advertising interruptions. 
      
      52.  Such an interpretation of series, although less expansive than that favoured by RTL, would not, in my view, result in any
      unjustified restriction of fundamental rights.  As I have argued above, and as RTL itself recognises in its submissions on
      the second, third and fourth questions, the protection of consumers is a legitimate goal which is capable of justifying any
      restriction represented by the special rule as limited by the exclusion.
      
      53.  Even assuming that the special rule as I have interpreted it and the exclusion to it constitutes a restriction of fundamental
      rights, I consider it a proportionate method of protecting viewers.  I would note, first of all, that RTL's argument on the
      question of proportionality appears to me to possess a more radical logic than RTL attributes to it.  If it were true, as
      RTL appears to suggest, that it would be sufficient, in order to protect viewers from excessive advertising, for broadcasters
      to inform viewers of the frequency of advertising breaks, and that any further restrictions on advertising were disproportionate,
      then it would follow that neither the special rule nor the general rule nor indeed the rules in the Directive regulating the
      overall quantity of advertising could be allowed to stand, at least in cases where the rights of the creators of the material
      broadcast were not in issue.  Given that those rules in the Directive could not be interpreted in such a way as to render
      them proportionate on RTL's assessment, they would need to be set aside as incompatible with broadcasters' and producers'
      fundamental rights.
      
      54.  In any event, I do not share RTL's reservations as to the proportionality of the interpretation of the special rule and the
      exception which I have here proposed.  As appears from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights applying the right
      to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that Court has shown itself willing
      to accept considerable restrictions on commercial advertising,  
      
         			(9)
         		 and has emphasised the particular importance of according to national authorities a margin of appreciation in commercial
      matters, especially in an area as complex and fluctuating as that of advertising.  
      
         			(10)
         		  Conclusion
      
      55.  I am therefore of the opinion that the questions referred to the Court should be answered as follows:
      (1) Article 11(3) 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 as amended
      by Directive 97/36/EC of 30 June 1997 applies irrespective of whether films made for television have from the outset been
      produced for television and provided with breaks designed for the insertion of advertising spots. 
      
      (2) Several audiovisual works constitute a series within the meaning of that provision where they share either a continuing dramatic
      narrative or characters (
       dramatis personae ) in common. 
      
      
      
       1 –
         
         Original language: English.
      
      2 –
         
         OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23.
      
      3 –
         
         OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60.
      
      4 –
         
         Case C-412/93  
             Leclerc-Siplec   [1995] ECR I-179, paragraphs 28 and 29 of the judgment.
         
      
      5 –
         
         EC Bulletin, No 12/1988, pp. 8 and 10.
      
      6 –
         
         Joined cases C-320-94, C-328/94, C-329/94, C-337/94, C-338/94 and C-339/94  
             RTI and Others  [1996] ECR I-6471, paragraph 33 of the judgment.
         
      
      7 –
         
         See paragraph 10 of my Opinion in case C-6/98  
             ARD  [1999] ECR I-7599.
         
      
      8 –
         
         COM(95) 86 final, 95/0074 (COD) of 31 May 1995, ‘Report on Application of Directive 89/552/EEC and Proposal for a European
            Parliament and Council Directive amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC', p. 40. 
         
      
      9 –
         
         . Casado Coca  v  
             Spain , judgment of 24 February 1994, ECHR Reports Series A No 285.
         
      
      10 –
         
         . VGT  Verein Gegen Tierfabriken  v  
             Switzerland , judgment of 28 June 2001, not yet reported, at paragraph 69.