European Commission v Kingdom of Spain.
Date: 2011-11-24
42. In those circumstances, it must be borne in mind that it follows from the need for uniform application of European Union law and from the principle of equality that the terms of a provision of that law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, having regard to the context of the provision and the objective pursued by the legislation in question (see, to that effect, Case C‑195/06 Österreichischer Rundfunk [2007] ECR I‑8817, paragraph 24 and case‑law cited, and Case C‑396/09 Interedil [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 42).
43. Accordingly, the scope which the European Union legislature sought to give to the concept of ‘advertising spots’, within the meaning of Article 18(1) and (2) of Directive 89/552, must be examined in the light of the context of that provision and the objective pursued by the legislation in question (see, by analogy, Österreichischer Rundfunk , paragraph 25).
44. It follows from the 27th recital in the preamble to Directive 89/552, as well as from Article 18(1) and (2) thereof, that Article 18 is intended to establish a balanced protection of the financial interests of television broadcasters and advertisers, on the one hand, and the interests of rights holders, namely writers and producers, and of consumers as television viewers, on the other (see, by analogy, Case C‑245/01 RTL Television [2003] ECR I‑12489, paragraph 62).
45. In this latter regard, the Court has already stated that the protection of consumers, as television viewers, from excessive advertising is an essential aspect of the objective of that directive ( Österreichischer Rundfunk , paragraph 27).
46. With that objective specifically in mind, as is stated in the 27th recital itself, the European Union legislature chose to ensure that the interests of consumers as television viewers were fully and properly protected by making the different forms of promotion such as television advertising, teleshopping and sponsorship subject to a certain number of minimum rules and standards (see, to that effect, Österreichischer Rundfunk , paragraph 26).
48. It is true that, as stated by the Kingdom of Spain, the Court ruled in Case C‑6/98 ARD [1999] ECR I‑7599, paragraphs 29 and 30, that the provisions of Directive 89/552 which impose a restriction on the freedom to provide television broadcasting services must, where they are not drafted in clear and unequivocal terms, be given a restrictive interpretation.
50. In that regard, the Court has also stated, as correctly observed by the Commission, that advertising spots are forms of promotion usually lasting a very short time, having a very strong suggestive impact, generally appearing in groups at varying intervals during or between programmes, and produced either by those who supply the products or services or by their agents, rather than by the broadcasters themselves ( RTI and Others , paragraph 31).
51. In RTI and Others , the Court, in the context of distinguishing the concept of spot advertisements from the concept of forms of advertisements such as ‘direct offers to the public’ provided for in Directive 89/552 in its original version, held that, in essence, the justification for increasing, exceptionally, the maximum transmission time in relation to those offers lay in the fact that their duration, because of the way in which they were presented, was greater and that the application of the limits on broadcasting time laid down in relation to spot advertisements amounted to disadvantaging those offers by comparison with spot advertisements. The Court stated, moreover, that those criteria could also be used in respect of other forms of promotion (see, to that effect, RTI and Others , paragraphs 32, 34 and 37).