CELEX: 62014CA0314
Language: en
Date: 2016-02-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-314/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Sanoma Media Finland Oy — Nelonen Media v Viestintävirasto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2010/13/EU — Article 19(1) — Separation of television advertising and programmes — Split screen — Article 23(1) and (2) — Limit of 20 % per clock hour on the broadcasting time for television advertising spots — Sponsorship announcements — Other references to a sponsor — ‘Black seconds’)

25.4.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 145/8
            
         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Sanoma Media Finland Oy — Nelonen Media v Viestintävirasto
   (Case C-314/14) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2010/13/EU - Article 19(1) - Separation of television advertising and programmes - Split screen - Article 23(1) and (2) - Limit of 20 % per clock hour on the broadcasting time for television advertising spots - Sponsorship announcements - Other references to a sponsor - ‘Black seconds’))
   (2016/C 145/08)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   
      Referring court
   
   Korkein hallinto-oikeus
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellant: Sanoma Media Finland Oy–Nelonen Media
   
      Respondent: Viestintävirasto
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 19(1) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a split screen that shows the closing credits of a television programme in one column and a list presenting the supplier’s upcoming programmes in the other, in order to separate the programme which is ending from the television advertising break that follows it, does not necessarily have to be combined with, or followed by, an acoustic or optical signal, provided that such a means of separation meets, in itself, the requirements set out in the first sentence of Article 19(1), a matter which is for the referring court to establish.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Article 23(2) of Directive 2010/13 must be interpreted as meaning that sponsorship signs shown in programmes other than the sponsored programme, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, must be included in the maximum time for the broadcasting of advertising per clock hour, set in Article 23(1) of that directive.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Article 23(1) of Directive 2010/13 must be interpreted, where a Member State has not made use of the power to lay down a stricter rule than that established by that article, as not only not precluding ‘black seconds’ which are inserted between the various spots of a television advertising break or between that break and the television programme which follows it from being included in the maximum time for the broadcasting of television advertising per clock hour which that article sets at 20 %, but also as requiring their inclusion.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.