CELEX: E1997P0008
Language: en
Date: 1997-10-21 00:00:00
Title: Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett by decision of that court of 21 October 1997 in the case of TV 1000 Sverige AB v. the Norwegian Government, represented by the Royal Ministry of Cultural Affairs (Case E-8/97)

Avis juridique important

|

E1997P0008

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett by decision of that court of 21 October 1997 in the case of TV 1000 Sverige AB v. the Norwegian Government, represented by the Royal Ministry of Cultural Affairs (Case E-8/97)  

Official Journal C 020 , 22/01/1998 P. 0018 - 0018

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo byrett by decision of that court of 21 October 1997 in the case of TV 1000 Sverige AB v. the Norwegian Government, represented by the Royal Ministry of Cultural Affairs (Case E-8/97) (98/C 20/10)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 21 October 1997 of Oslo byrett (Oslo City Court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 24 October 1997, for an advisory opinion in the case of TV 1000 Sverige v. the Norwegian Government, represented by the Royal Ministry of Cultural Affairs, on the following questions.1. Does Article 22, first sentence of Council Directive 89/552/EEC introduce a common standard for what 'might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors` or is it left up to each individual EU and EFTA country to determine the degree of pornography, violence, etc., which is to be deemed to have the damaging effects referred to in Article 22?2. In the event that Article 22, first sentence of Council Directive 89/552/EEC establishes a common standard for the European Economic Area: is the Swedish norm which accepts scenes shot in close-ups with masturbation, licking and sucking of sexual organs, intercourse, dwelling on ejaculation in the mouths of women and group sex an expression of the common norm in Article 22 which is to apply for the European Economic Area?3. Can the provision in Article 22(I) second sentence of Council Directive 89/552/EEC concerning the choice of broadcast time and technical measures apply to circumstances which are to be subsumed under Article 22(I) first sentence?4. If a film is deemed to be contrary to Article 22(I) first sentence of Council Directive 89/552/EEC, is Article 2(2)(a) a further impediment to the temporary interruption of further broadcast of television broadcasts under Article 2(2)?5. Are repeated acts contrary to Article 22 of the TV Directive to be subsumed under Article 2(2)(a) or