natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Retten har endvidere undersøgt Kommissionens argument om, at kun tv-spredningsforetagender, der er etableret i Det Forenede Kongerige, har interesse i at købe tv-senderettighederne til slutrundekampene i FIFA’s verdensmesterskaber.
The Court of First Instance then considered the Commission’s argument that only television broadcasters established in the United Kingdom would be interested in purchasing from Infront the rights to broadcast the FIFA World Cup finals.
Retten har heraf udledt, at denne sag er forskellig fra den, der har givet anledning til Rettens dom af 13. december 2000, DSTV mod Kommissionen 12, som Kommissionen har påberåbt sig, vedrørende direktivets artikel 2a, stk. 2, andet afsnit, som foreskriver en efterfølgende kontrol af, om de foranstaltninger, som en medlemsstat har truffet med henblik på at forbyde transmissioner, der hidrører fra andre medlemsstater, på sit område, er forenelige med fællesskabsretten.
The Court of First Instance concluded that the case now before the Court is different from the case which gave rise to the judgment in DSTV v Commission, 12cited by the Commission, concerning the second subparagraph of Article 2a(2) of the Directive, which requires a posteriori verification of the compatibility with Community law of the measures adopted by a Member State in order to prevent the broadcasting on its territory of programmes from other Member States.
Retten har endvidere anført, at de nationale myndigheder fra og med den anfægtede skrivelses offentliggørelse ikke overlades noget skøn med hensyn til overholdelsen af deres forpligtelser.
It stated, furthermore, that the contested letter did not leave the national authorities any discretion, once the measures were published, as to the performance of their obligations.
Retten anfører, at »selv om den kontrol, som de nationale myndigheder skal foretage inden for rammerne af ordningen om gensidig anerkendelse,
In the Court of First Instance’s view, ‘[a]lthough the detailed rules for the control which the national authorities are required to exercise under the mechanism of mutual recognition are determined by each Member State in the framework of its
Kommissionen har således hævdet, at selv om dens indledende kontrol af de anmeldte foranstaltninger medførte, at de øvrige medlemsstater skulle sikre, at de tv-spredningsforetagender, der hører under deres jurisdiktion, iagttager listen over begivenheder af væsentlig samfundsmæssig interesse, ville dette være uden relevans i den foreliggende sag.
The Commission maintained, indeed, that even if its preliminary verification of the measures notified were to cause other Member States to ensure that broadcasters in their jurisdiction respected the list of events of major importance for society, that would have no effect in the present case.
Ifølge Kommissionen er det nemlig utænkeligt, at Infront overdrager underlicenser af sine tv-rettigheder til begivenheder i Det Forenede Kongerige til et tv-spredningsforetagende, der ikke er etableret i Det Forenede Kongerige, idet disse rettigheder overdrages på grundlag af national ret.
In the Commission’s submission, it was inconceivable that Infront would sub-license its television rights for the United Kingdom to a television broadcaster not established in the United Kingdom, as those rights were granted on a national basis.
11 — Præmis 138-143.12 — Sag T-69/99, Sml. II, s. 4039.
11 — Paragraphs 138 to 143.12 — T-69/99 [2000] ECR II-4039.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT BOT — SAG C-125/06 P tv-spredningsforetagenders indtjening fra reklamekampagner, der henvender sig til det nationale publikum, fra opkrævning af licens eller fra abonnementer til betalingstv. Det er således i disse foretagenders inter -esse at levere fjernsynsprogrammer til et nationalt publikum, hvorfor det kun er de foretagender, der kan komme i kontakt med en større befolkningsgruppe, der vil acceptere at købe de tv-rettigheder, som Infront er indehaver af, til en forhøjet pris.
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-125/06 P broadcasters was generated from advertising directed at the national audience, national licence fees or national subscription fees for pay television.
Eftersom de potentielle indehavere af underlicenser til disse rettigheder i Det Forenede Kongerige således er de foretagender, der hører under Det Forenede Kongerige jurisdiktion, er det udelukkende nationale foranstaltninger, der havde kunnet berøre Infront umiddelbart 14.
Therefore, since the potential sub-licensees of such rights for the United Kingdom were entities under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom authorities, only the national measures directly affected Infront.
Forenede Kongerige, som kan have interesse i at erhverve [Infronts] rettigheder til dækning af slutrundekampene i FIFA’s verdensmesterskab med henblik på at transmittere dem i Det Forenede Kongerige, bemærkes, at en sådan antagelse ophæver den tilsigtede virkning af direktivets artikel 3a, stk. 3.
14 established in the United Kingdom would be interested in purchasing from [Infront] the rights to broadcast the FIFA World Cup finals in order to broadcast them in the United Kingdom, it should be noted that such an assumption deprives Article 3a(3) of the Directive of all practical effect.
Der skal erindres om, at formålet med artiklen i henhold til betragtning 18 og 19 til direktiv 97/36 er at sikre fri tilgængelighed for befolkningen til begivenheder, der af medlemsstaterne er erklæret for at være af væsentlig samfundsmæssig interesse, og på baggrund af princippet om gensidig anerkendelse at forpligte medlemsstaterne til at sikre, at de tv-sprednings-foretagender, der hører under deres jurisdiktion, iagttager de lister over begivenheder, som en anden medlemsstat har angivet med henblik på ikke at udelukke en væsentlig del af befolkningen i denne stat fra at følge de begivenheder, som er angivet af denne stat.
According to recitals 18 and 19 to Directive 97/36, the purpose of that article is to ensure wide access by the public to television coverage of events considered to be of major importance for society by the Member States and, on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition, to require the Member States to ensure that broadcasters under their jurisdiction respect the list of events established by another Member State so as not to deprive a substantial proportion of the public in that State of the possibility of following the events designated by that State.
Kommissionen har i den forbindelse anført, at tv-sendemarkedet i Det Forenede Kongerige er et af de mest konkurrencedygtige i Europa, og at 25% af de tv-radiospred-ningsorganer, der opererer på dette marked, har en licens i Det Forenede Kongerige 15.
The Commission also noted, in that context, that the television broadcasting market in the United Kingdom was one of the most competitive in Europe and that 25% of the broadcasters operating in the sector were licensed in the United Kingdom. 15
Retten har bemærket følgende:
The Court of First Instance held as follows:
»147 Endelig skal det for så vidt angår Kommissionens argument om, at det udelukkende er de tv-sprednings-foretagender, der er etableret i Det
‘147 Lastly, as regards the Commission’s argument that only broadcasters
148 Selv om de faktiske omstændigheder i sagen, som gav anledning til House of Lords’ dom [af 25. juli 2001], R v. ITC, ex parte TV Danmark 1 Ltd [2001] UKHL 42 […], vedrørte begivenheder, som var angivet af Kongeriget Danmark, bekræfter den alligevel, at der forekommer situationer, hvor den med direktivets artikel 3a, stk. 3, indførte ordning om gensidig anerkendelse iværksættes.
148 The facts of the case which gave rise to the judgment of the House of Lords [of 25 July 2001] in R v ITC ex parte TV Danmark 1 Ltd [2001] UKHL 42 …, although relating to events designated by the Kingdom of Denmark, also confirm the existence of situations implementing the mechanism of mutual recognition established by Article 3a(3) of the Directive.
B — Spørgsmålet, om Infront er individuelt berørt har Kommissionen i sin III beretning til Rådet, Europa-Parlamentet og Det Europæiske Økonomiske og Sociale Udvalg om gennemførelsen af direktivet [KOM(2001) 9 endelig] angivet, at tv-spredningsforetagender, der hører under Det Forenede Kongeriges jurisdiktion, tre gange har dækket begivenheder, som var angivet af Kongeriget Danmark, på en sådan måde, at en væsentlig del af den danske befolkning ikke havde mulighed for at følge dem.
Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on the Application of [the Directive] (COM(2001) 9 final) states that in three cases, television broadcasters under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom have broadcast events listed by the Kingdom of Denmark in a way that prevented a substantial part of the Danish population from seeing those events.
149 Under disse omstændigheder kan det, til trods for Kommissionens påstande — som ikke er underbygget — om, at markedet for tv-radio-spredningsvirksomhed i Det Forenede Kongerige har en speciel karakter (jf. præmis 121 [i den anfægtede dom]), således ikke antages, at fjernsynsrettighederne til slutrundekampene i FIFA’s verdensmesterskaber i denne medlemsstat nødvendigvis vil blive erhvervet af tv-spredningsforetagender, som er etableret i samme stat.«
149 In those circumstances, notwithstanding the Commission’s unsupported allegations as to the specificity of the television broadcasting market in the United Kingdom (see paragraph 121 [of the judgment under appeal]), it cannot be assumed that the rights to broadcast the FIFA World Cup finals in that State will be acquired by broadcasters established in that State.’
Retten har herefter anført, at Infront har eneretten til i årene 2002 og 2006 at transmittere slutrundekampene i FIFA’s verdensmesterskaber, og at dette er en af de begivenheder af væsentlig samfundsmæssig interesse, der optræder på den liste, der er udarbejdet af Det Forenede Kongerige, og som er godkendt af Kommissionen, og at de tv-spredningsforetagender, der hører under en anden medlemsstats jurisdiktion, derfor nødvendigvis skal indgå aftale med Infront i dennes egenskab af forhandler af senderettighederne til disse begivenheder for at opnå licens til fjernsynstransmission af disse begivenheder 16.
It stated next that Infront held the exclusive television broadcasting rights to the 2002 and 2006 FIFA World Cup finals, which were included among the events of major importance for society chosen by the United Kingdom and approved by the Commission, and that television broadcasters under the jurisdiction of the other Member States had necessarily to deal with Infront in its capacity as broker of the broadcasting rights to the World Cup finals, for the purposes of obtaining licences to broadcast them on television. 16
Retten har angivet, at de foranstaltninger, som blev vedtaget af Det Forenede
It stated that the measures adopted by the United Kingdom imposed restrictions on
Retten har udledt af ovenstående, at Infront er umiddelbart berørt af den anfægtede skrivelse, for så vidt som den muliggør gennemførelse af ordningen om de andre medlemsstaters gensidige anerkendelse af de af Det Forenede Kongerige anmeldte foranstaltninger.
The Court of First Instance concluded from the foregoing that Infront was directly concerned by the contested letter in so far as it enabled the implementation of the mechanism of mutual recognition by the other Member States of the measures notified by the United Kingdom.
16 — Præmis 160 og 161.
16 — Paragraphs 160 and 161.
Kongerige, begrænser tv-spredningsforeta-gendernes mulighed for at erhverve eneret til senderettigheder, således at selv om disse bestemmelser ikke udtrykkeligt finder anvendelse på Infront, indebærer de en begrænsning i selskabets mulighed for frit at kunne disponere over sine rettigheder 17.
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-125/06 P those broadcasters as to the conditions under which they might acquire exclusive broadcasting rights, so that those measures, even if they did not expressly cover Infront, impeded its ability freely to dispose of its rights. 17
ning indeholdt i dens skrivelse til Det Forenede Kongerige, i øvrigt frifindes Kommissionen; Den Franske Republik, Det Forenede Kongerige samt Europa-Parlamentet betaler de af Infronts omkostninger, der er forvoldt ved deres intervention, Kommissionen bærer sine egne omkostninger og betaler Infronts omkostninger, med undtagelse af de omkostninger, der er nævnt ovenfor, og intervenienterne bærer deres egne omkostninger.
French Republic, the United Kingdom and the Parliament were ordered to bear Infront’s costs arising from their interventions, the Commission was ordered to bear its own costs and Infront’s apart from those previously mentioned, and the interveners were ordered to bear their own costs.
Endvidere har Retten erindret om, at Infront har erhvervet eneretten til de omhandlede rettigheder, inden direktivets artikel 3a trådte i kraft, og a fortiori inden den anfægtede skrivelse blev udfærdiget, og at skrivelsen berører Infront på grund af en egenskab, som er særlig for selskabet 18.
It noted that Infront acquired the rights in question exclusively, before the entry into force of Article 3a of the Directive and, a fortiori, before the adoption of the contested letter, with the result that the letter concerned Infront by reason of a characteristic peculiar to it. 18
Kommissionen har nedlagt påstand om, at Domstolen ophæver den appellerede dom, at Domstolen træffer endelig afgørelse ved at fastslå, at den af Infront anlagte sag, der gav anledning til dommen, skulle have været afvist, og at Infront tilpligtes at betale omkostningerne i den nævnte sag og denne sags omkostninger.
The Commission claims that the Court should set aside the judgment under appeal, give final judgment on Infront’s application in the case which gave rise to the judgment under appeal by declaring it to be inadmissible, and order Infront to pay the costs arising from that case and the present appeal.
Retten har fastslået, at den anfægtede retsakt var behæftet med tilsidesættelse af væsentlige formforskrifter med den begrundelse, at den var blevet udfærdiget, uden at kommissionskollegiet var blevet hørt, og at generaldirektøren, der havde underskrevet den anfægtede skrivelse, ikke havde modtaget nogen udtrykkelig bemyndigelse af kollegiet 19.
The Court of First Instance held that the contested measure was vitiated by a breach of essential procedural requirements, on the ground that it was adopted without the College of Commissioners being consulted and that the Director-General who signed it had received no specific power from the College. 19
17 — Præmis 162-165.18 — Præmis 166 og 167.19 — Præmis 177.
17 — Paragraphs 162 to 165.18 — Paragraphs 166 and 167.19 — Paragraph 177.
Infront har i det væsentlige nedlagt påstand om, at appellen forkastes, og at Kommissionen tilpligtes at betale omkostningerne, og at denne tilpligtelse afsiges, selv om appellen i givet fald erklæres begrundet, i henhold til procesreglementets artikel 69, stk. 3, under hensyn til, at Kommissionen kun delvis bestrider den appellerede dom.
Infront contends, in essence, that the appeal should be dismissed and the Commission ordered to pay the costs; it requests the award of costs, pursuant to Article 69(3) of the Rules of Procedure, even if the appeal is allowed, in view of the fact that the Commission is challenging the judgment under appeal only in part.
Kommissionen bestrider Rettens bedømmelse, hvorefter Infront er umiddelbart og individuelt berørt af den anfægtede retsakt som omhandlet i artikel 230, stk. 4, EF, i henhold til hvilken enhver fysisk eller juridisk person kan indbringe klage over beslutninger, som, skønt de er udfærdiget i form af en beslutning rettet til en anden person, dog berører ham umiddelbart og individuelt.
The Commission challenges the Court of First Instance’s findings that Infront was directly, and individually, concerned by the contested measure, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, under which any natural or legal person may institute proceedings against a decision which, although in the form of a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to the former.
Jeg undersøger disse to klagepunkter i nævnte rækkefølge.
I shall examine those two grounds of appeal successively.
A — Bedømmelsen, hvorefter Infront er umiddelbart berørt af den anfægtede retsakt
A — The finding that Infront was directly concerned by the contested measure
Kommissionen har således gjort gældende, at retsakten indebærer, at medlemsstaterne pålægger tv-sprednings-foretagenderne forpligtelser, som kan afskrække dem fra at købe rettighederne til transmission af de begivenheder, der er omhandlet i de anmeldte foranstaltninger eller få dem til at erhverve disse rettigheder til en lavere pris end den, de ville have accepteret at betale, hvis der ikke havde været sådanne foranstaltninger.
It states that that measure requires the Member States to impose obligations on television broadcasters which could dissuade them from purchasing the broadcasting rights to events covered by the notified measures or lead them to acquire those rights at a price lower than that which they would have been willing to pay in the absence of those measures.
Et betalings-tv-selskab kan give afkald på at erhverve senderettighederne til sådanne begivenheder, når disse ligeledes skal transmitteres af et gratis tv-spredningsforetagende, som dækker 95% af Det Forenede Kongeriges territorium.
A pay television company might decide not to acquire the broadcasting rights to such events as they must also be broadcast by a free-to-air broadcaster covering 95% of the territory of the United Kingdom.
Infront ville således have færre potentielle købere og ville følgelig befinde sig i en mindre gunstig forretningssituation. Der ville imidlertid kun være tale om indirekte økonomiske konsekvenser.
Infront would therefore have fewer potential purchasers and find itself, as a result, in a worse business situation.
Selskabets retsstilling forbliver uændret.
Its legal position would remain unaltered.
Såfremt det er tilstrækkeligt, at en retsakt indvirker på sagsøgerens økonomiske situation for at berøre denne umiddelbart, kritiserer Kommissionen subsidiært Retten for ikke at have redegjort for de reelle forretningsmæssige følger af den anfægtede retsakt for en forhandler som Infront.
In the alternative, assuming that it would be sufficient for the applicant to be directly concerned by a measure if that measure affects its economic position, the Commission complains that the Court of First Instance did not explain what exactly the business consequences of the contested measure would be for a broker such as Infront.
Disse følger vil i realiteten være helt usikre, fordi der, så vidt Kommissionen er orienteret, aldrig har været et tv-spredningsforetagende, der er etableret i en anden medlemsstat end Det Forenede Kongerige, som har været villig til at betale det af Infront forventede beløb for senderettighederne til slutrundekampene i
In reality, such consequences are entirely uncertain, because, to the Commission’s knowledge, there has never been a television broadcaster established in a Member State other than the United Kingdom which would have been willing to pay the sum expected by Infront for the right to broadcast the FIFA World Cup finals in the United Kingdom. Since the income of television
For så vidt angår den første betingelse hævder Kommissionen principalt, at Retten ikke har forklaret, hvorledes den anfægtede retsakt har andet end indirekte indvirkning på Infronts forretningssituation.
The Commission submits that the Court of First Instance did not show that the two conditions required by the caselaw were satisfied, according to which, first, the measure at issue must affect the applicant’s legal situation and, second, its implementation must be purely automatic.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT BOT — SAG C-125/06 P uden anvendelse af andre mellemkommende regler, har Retten tilsidesat virkningen af direktivets artikel 3a, stk. 3.
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-125/06 P broadcasters is generated from advertising directed at the national audience, national licence fees or national subscription fees, a potential purchaser, in order to make such an investment, would have to have sufficiently broad coverage within the United Kingdom or wish to refocus its business on those lines.
Ifølge Kommissionen bestemmes begivenhederne og deres transmissionsform, direkte eller forskudt, helt eller delvist, af den anmeldende stat og dermed af den beslutning, hvorefter disse foranstaltninger erklæres forenelige med fællesskabsretten.
Admittedly, in the Commission’s submission, the events and the manner in which they are to be broadcast, whole or in part, live or deferred, are determined by the notifying State and, therefore, by the decision declaring those measures to be compatible with Community law.
I modsætning til, hvad Retten har anført i den appellerede doms præmis 146, fratager denne beslutning imidlertid ikke de nationale myndigheder et skøn med hensyn til overholdelsen af deres forpligtelser.
However, contrary to the Court of First Instance’s statement in paragraph 146 of the judgment under appeal, that decision does not deprive the national authorities of any discretion as to the performance of their obligations.
Iagttagelsen af de forpligtelser, der er fastsat af den anmeldende stat, afhænger i høj grad af de kompetente nationale myndigheders lovgivning og tilrettelæggelse.
The implementation of the obligations set out by the notifying State depends greatly on the legislation applied by and the view taken by the competent national authorities.
Retten har således begået en retlig fejl ved ikke at pålægge Infront at føre bevis for de nævnte økonomiske følger og ved at give indtryk af, at Kommissionen ikke havde begrundet sine anbringender med hensyn til den specielle karakter af markedet for tv-spredningsvirksomhed i Det Forenede Kongerige.
The Court of First Instance therefore made an error of law by not requiring Infront to prove such economic consequences and by indicating that the Commission had not substantiated its allegations as to the specificity of the television broadcasting market in the United Kingdom.
Retten har ligeledes ved at hævde, at dette standpunkt fra Kommissionens side ophæver den tilsigtede virkning af direktivets artikel 3a, stk. 3, fortolket denne bestemmelse fejlagtigt, fordi dette vil sige, at for hver begivenhed, der angives af en medlemsstat, skal der i andre medlemsstater nødvendigvis findes tv-spredningsorganer, der kan købe eksklusive transmissionsrettigheder til denne begivenhed i den førstnævnte stat.
Likewise, the Court of First Instance, by stating that the Commission’s position deprives Article 3a(3) of the Directive of all practical effect, misinterpreted that provision, because that would mean that for each event designated by a Member State there would necessarily have to be, in other Member States, television broadcasters liable to acquire the exclusive broadcasting rights to that event in the first State.
At sådanne forskelle virkelig findes illustreres ved sagen TV Danmark 1, der gav anledning til en dom ved Court of Appeal og House of Lords’ dom vedrørende gennemførelsen af forpligtelser fastsat af Kongeriget Danmark i Det Forenede Kongerige vedrørende begivenheder af væsentlig interesse for denne medlemsstats samfund.
The reality of such differences is illustrated by the TV Danmark 1 case, which gave rise to a judgment of the Court of Appeal and another of the House of Lords, regarding the performance in the United Kingdom of obligations set out by the Kingdom of Denmark in relation to events of major importance for society in that Member State.
Ifølge den britiske ordning er det tilstrækkeligt, at et tv-spredningsforetagende med gratis adgang og kontakt til størstedelen af den anmeldende medlemsstats befolkning
Under the United Kingdom system, it is sufficient if a free-to-air television broadcaster reaching most of the population of the notifying Member State has had a fair opportunity to acquire the exclusive rights in ques-