natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Denne appel har som retsgrundlag Rådets direktiv 89/552/EØF 2, som omhandler tv-radiospredningsvirksomhed inden for det fælles marked og tilsigter at fremme den frie bevægelighed for tv-tjenester mellem medlemsstaterne.
The legal framework for the present appeal is provided by Council Directive 89/552/EEC, 2which covers television broadcasting activities in the common market and is intended to ensure the free movement of television services between the Member States.
Hvis Kommissionen finder, at foranstaltningerne er forenelige med fællesskabsretten, offentliggør den dem i De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende, og denne offentliggørelse har til følge, at de øvrige medlemsstater forpligtes til at sikre, at tv-radiospred-ningsforetagender, der er etableret på deres område, og som sender til den medlemsstat, som har angivet dem, overholder disse foranstaltninger.
If the Commission considers that those measures do comply, it publishes them in the Official Journal of the European Com­munities and such publication obliges the other Member States to ensure that television broadcasters established in their territory comply with them, if they broadcast to the Member State which established the measures.
I dommen af 15. december 2005, Infront WM mod Kommissionen 3, antog De Euro-
In its judgment of 15 December 2005 in Infront WM v Commission, 3the Court of
I henhold til direktivets artikel 3a kan en medlemsstat beslutte, at begivenheder, som den anser for at være af væsentlig samfundsmæssig interesse, såsom De Olympiske Lege og verdensmesterskaberne i fodbold, skal sendes på dens område på en gratis tv-kanal, der er tilgængelig for en stor del af befolkningen.
Article 3a of the Directive enables a Member State to decide that events which it considers to be particularly important for society, such as the Olympic Games or the football World Cup, must be broadcast in its territory on free television accessible to a high proportion of the population.
Artikel 3a bestemmer, at en medlemsstats foranstaltninger i denne forbindelse skal meddeles Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber, som kontrollerer deres forenelighed med fællesskabsretten.
That article provides that the measures taken by a Member State for that purpose must be notified to the Commission of the European Communities which is to verify their compliance with Community law.
pæiske Fællesskabers Ret i Første Instans det af selskabet Infront WM AG, tidligere Kirch-Media WM AG 4, anlagte søgsmål til prøvelse af Kommissionens beslutning af 28. juli 2000, der var truffet inden for rammerne af direktivets artikel 3a, hvori det fastsloges, at de af Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirland meddelte foranstaltninger var forenelige med fællesskabsretten, til realitetsbehandling og erklærede den begrundet.
First Instance of the European Communities held that the action brought by Infront WM AG, formerly KirchMedia WM AG, 4 against the decision of 28 July 2000 adopted by the Commission under Article 3a of the Directive was admissible and well-founded. That decision had found the measures notified by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to be in compliance with Community law.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT BOT — SAG C-125/06 P
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-125/06 P
Direktivets artikel 3a blev indført ved direktiv 97/36. Den har følgende ordlyd:
Article 3a of the Directive was inserted by Directive 97/36.
Retten fandt, at den beslutning, hvorved Kommissionen fastslog foreneligheden, udgjorde en anfægtelig retsakt.
The Court of First Instance held that the decision by which the Commission found the measures to be compliant was a challengeable act.
Den fastslog ligeledes, at Infront, hvis virksomhed består i køb og videresalg af rettigheder til fjernsynstransmission af sportsbegivenheder, var umiddelbart og individuelt berørt af denne beslutning, for så vidt som Infront var indehaver af eneret til at transmittere slutrundekampene i fodboldverdensmesterskaberne, afholdt af Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), i årene 2002 og 2006 til det europæiske kontinent, og disse begivenheder figurerer blandt dem af væsentlig samfundsmæssig interesse, der er nævnt i de foranstaltninger, som Det Forenede Kongerige havde meddelt Kommissionen.
It also held that Infront, which engages in the purchase and resale of rights to broadcast sporting events, was directly and individually concerned by that decision, since it was the holder, for the countries of Europe for the years 2002 and 2006, of the exclusive broadcasting rights in respect of the football World Cup finals organised by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and those events were included among the events of major importance referred to in the measures notified to the Commission by the United Kingdom.
I nærværende appel har Kommissionen ikke bestridt Rettens bedømmelse, hvorefter den beslutning, den skal træffe inden for rammerne af den i direktivets artikel 3a indførte procedure, udgør en anfægtelig retsakt.
In the present appeal, the Commission does not challenge the Court of First Instance’s analysis according to which the decision which the Commission is required to take as part of the procedure under Article 3a of the Directive does constitute a challengeable act.
Den bestrider derimod den bedømmelse, hvorefter Infront er umiddelbart og individuelt berørt af beslutningen, hvorefter de af Det Forenede Kongerige anmeldte foranstaltninger erklæres forenelige med fællesskabsretten.
On the other hand, it disputes the assessment that Infront was directly and individually concerned by the decision finding that the measures notified by the United Kingdom complied with Community law.
Enhver medlemsstat kan træffe foranstaltninger i overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten for at sikre, at et tv-sprednings-foretagende under dens jurisdiktion ikke udnytter sin eneret til at udsende begivenheder, der af den pågældende medlemsstat anses for at være af væsentlig samfundsmæssig interesse, på en sådan måde, at en betydelig del af befolkningen i den pågældende medlemsstat forhindres i at kunne følge sådanne begivenheder via direkte eller tidsforskudt transmission på gratis fjernsyn.
Each Member State may take measures in accordance with Community law to ensure that broadcasters under its jurisdiction do not broadcast on an exclusive basis events which are regarded by that Member State as being of major importance for society in such a way as to deprive a substantial proportion of the public in that Member State of the possibility of following such events via live coverage or deferred coverage on free television.
Kommissionen kontrollerer inden for en periode på tre måneder fra underretningen, at sådanne
Within a period of three months from the notification, the Commission shall verify that such measures are compatible with Community law
I dette forslag til afgørelse angiver jeg, at Retten efter min mening ikke har begået en retlig fejl i sin vurdering af Infronts søgsmålskompetence.
In the present Opinion, I shall show that the Court of First Instance did not, in my view, err in law when finding that Infront had standing to bring the proceedings.
II — Sagens faktiske omstændigheder
II — The facts which gave rise to dispute and communicate them to the other Member States.
De faktiske omstændigheder, der er fremført i den anfægtede dom, som forekommer mig at være nødvendige for forståelsen af de retlige problemer, der rejses med den af Kommissionen iværksatte appel, er følgende.
The facts set out in the judgment under appeal which seem to me to be necessary for an understanding of the legal problems raised by the Commission’s appeal are the following.
Infront driver virksomhed bestående i køb, administration og salg af rettigheder til fjernsynstransmission af sportsbegivenheder og køber normalt disse rettigheder hos arrangørerne.
Infront is involved in the acquisition, management and marketing of television broadcasting rights for sporting events and typically purchases those rights from the event’s organiser.
Selskabet videresælger herefter de erhvervede rettigheder til tv-spredningsforetagender.
It resells the rights thus acquired to broadcasters.
Medlemsstaterne sikrer, at tv-sprednings-foretagender under deres jurisdiktion ikke udnytter en eneret, som disse foretagender har erhvervet efter datoen for offentliggørelsen af dette direktiv, på en sådan måde, at en betydelig del af befolkningen i en anden medlemsstat forhindres i at kunne følge begivenheder, der af den anden medlemsstat er erklæret for at være af væsentlig samfundsmæssig interesse i henhold til stk. 1 og 2, via hel eller delvis direkte transmission eller — hvor det i offentlighedens interesse af objektive grunde er nødvendigt eller hensigtsmæssigt — hel eller delvis tidsforskudt transmission på gratis fjernsyn således som fastlagt af denne anden medlemsstat i overensstemmelse med stk. 1.«
Member States shall ensure, by appropriate means, within the framework of their legislation that broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not exercise the exclusive rights purchased by those broadcasters following the date of publication of this Directive in such a way that a substantial proportion of the public in another Member State is deprived of the possibility of following events which are designated by that other Member State in accordance with the preceding paragraphs via whole or partial live coverage or, where necessary or appropriate for objective reasons in the public interest, whole or partial deferred coverage on free television as determined by that other Member State in accordance with paragraph 1.’
Infront fik af sit moderselskab overdraget eneretten til at transmittere slutrundekampene i FIFA’s verdensmesterskaber til det europæiske kontinent, med undtagelse af Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, såvel som til Den Russiske Republik, de øvrige tidligere sovjetrepublikker og Tyrkiet, som dets moderselskab havde erhvervet fra FIFA til en minimumspris af 1,4 mia. schweiziske franc.
Infront was assigned by its parent company the exclusive broadcasting rights, which that company had acquired from FIFA for a minimum price of CHF 1.4 billion, in respect of the FIFA World Cup finals for the countries of Europe, except the Federal Republic of Germany, for Russia and the other former Republics of the Soviet Union and for Turkey.
Det Forenede Kongerige underrettede den 25. september 1998 og endvidere ved skrivelse af 5. maj 2000 Kommissionen om
The United Kingdom notified the Commission on 25 September 1998, then by letter of 5 May 2000, of the measures
Begrebet »tv-spredningsforetagende« defineres i direktivets artikel 1, litra b), som »den fysiske eller juridiske person, som har det redaktionelle ansvar for programlægningen af tv-programmer i den i litra a) omhandlede forstand, og som udsender dem eller får dem udsendt af en tredjepart«.
The meaning of ‘broadcaster’ is defined in Article 1(b) of the Directive as ‘the natural or legal person who has editorial responsibility for the composition of schedules of television programmes within the meaning of (a) and who transmits them or has them transmitted by third parties’.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT BOT — SAG C-125/06 P de foranstaltninger, der var blevet truffet i medfør af direktivets artikel 3a, stk. 1.
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-125/06 P taken under Article 3a(1) of the Directive, including a list of events of major importance for society in that State.
Den 18. november 2000 offentliggjorde Kommissionen i medfør af direktivets artikel 3a, stk. 2, de pågældende foranstaltninger.
On 18 November 2000, the Commission, in accordance with Article 3a(2) of the Directive, published the measures in question.
Disse foranstaltninger omfatter uddrag af Det Forenede Kongeriges lovgivning samt listen over begivenheder af væsentlig samfundsmæssig interesse for denne medlemsstat, blandt hvilke findes slutrundekampene i FIFA’s verdensmesterskaber.
Those measures include extracts from United Kingdom legislation and the list of events of major importance for society in that Member State, including the FIFA World Cup finals.
Ved skrivelse af 22. januar 2001 meddelte Kommissionen som svar på Infronts anmodninger, sendt ved skrivelse af 7. og 22. december 2000, at kontrolproceduren vedrørende de af Det Forenede Kongerige anmeldte foranstaltninger var afsluttet, og at listen over begivenheder blev anset for at være forenelig med fællesskabsretten.
By letter of 22 January 2001, the Commission, in reply to Infront’s requests by letters of 7 and 22 December 2000, informed it that the verification procedure for the measures notified by the United Kingdom had been completed and that the list of events was regarded as being compatible with Community law.
Ved skrivelse til Kommissionen af 14. juli 2000 gjorde Infront gældende, at den af Det Forenede Kongerige udarbejdede liste ikke kunne anerkendes, idet den ikke var forenelig med direktivets artikel 3a samt andre af fællesskabsrettens bestemmelser.
By letter of 14 July 2000, addressed to the Commission, Infront submitted that the list drawn up by the United Kingdom could not be approved because it was incompatible both with Article 3a of the Directive and with other provisions of Community law.
I skrivelsen gjorde Infront særligt gældende, at listen ikke var udarbejdet på en klar og gennemskuelig måde, at listen indeholdt begivenheder, der ikke var af væsentlig samfundsmæssig inter -esse for det britiske samfund, at de nationale og fællesskabsretlige høringsprocedurer var behæftet med alvorlige svagheder, og endelig anfægtedes ordningens tilbagevirkende gyldighed.
It alleged that, among other things, the list in question was not drawn up pursuant to a clear and transparent procedure, that it included events which were not of major importance for United Kingdom society and that the national and Community consultation procedures were marred by serious deficiencies, and it criticised the retroactive nature of the relevant legislation.
Den 28. juli 2000 fremsendte generaldirektøren for Kommissionens Generaldirektorat for Uddannelse og Kultur en skrivelse til Det Forenede Kongerige, hvori det var angivet, at de af denne medlemsstat anmeldte foranstaltninger vedrørende tv-dækningen af begivenheder af samfundsmæssig interesse for Det Forenede Kongerige ikke gav anledning til indvendinger fra Kommissionen.
On 28 July 2000, the Director-General of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Education and Culture sent a letter to the United Kingdom stating that the measures notified by that Member State concerning the television coverage of events of national interest in the United Kingdom gave rise to no objection on the Commission’s part.
Den 12. februar 2001 anlagde Infront sag ved Retten med påstand om, at Kommissionens beslutning i henhold til direktivets artikel 3a, hvorefter de af Det Forenede Kongerige anmeldte foranstaltninger erklæres forenelige med fællesskabsretten, annulleres helt eller delvist.
On 12 February 2001, Infront brought an action before the Court of First Instance for the annulment, in whole or in part, of the Commission’s decision under Article 3a of the Directive that the measures notified by the United Kingdom were compatible with Community law.
Ved særskilt dokument af 11. juni 2001 påstod Kommissionen sagen afvist i medfør af artikel 114 i Rettens procesreglement.
By separate document of 11 June 2001, the Commission raised an objection, under Article 114 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, to the admissibility of that action.
Retten henskød denne afvisningspåstand til afgørelse i forbindelse med sagens realitet.
The Court reserved its decision on that objection for the final judgment.
Den tillod ligeledes Kongeriget Danmark, Den Franske Republik og Det Forenede Kongerige samt Europa-Parlamentet og Rådet for Den Europæiske Union at intervenere til støtte for Kommissionens påstande.
It also granted the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the United Kingdom, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union leave to intervene in support of the forms of order sought by the Commission.
Kongeriget Danmark frafaldt sin intervention.
The Kingdom of Denmark withdrew its intervention.
Rådet har ikke indgivet indlæg.
The Council lodged no pleading.
Retten anførte, at den anfægtede skrivelse har retsvirkninger i medlemsstaterne, for så vidt som den fastsætter offentliggørelse af de foranstaltninger, som er blevet anmeldt til Kommissionen i De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende, og da denne offentliggørelse udløser mekanismen med gensidig anerkendelse som omhandlet i direktivets artikel 3a, stk. 3.
The Court of First Instance held that the contested letter produced legal effects for the Member States since it envisaged publication in the Official Journal of the measures notified to the Commission and such publication triggered the mechanism for mutual recognition laid down by Article 3a(3) of the Directive.
Retten har anført, at offentliggørelsen giver medlemsstaterne mulighed for at gøre sig bekendt med disse foranstaltninger med henblik på at iagttage de forpligtelser, der påhviler dem i medfør af denne bestemmelse 6.
It stated that publication informed the Member States of the existence of those measures and enabled them to comply with their obligations under that provision. 6
Ifølge Retten giver direktivets artikel 3a, stk. 2, Kommissionen en beslutningsbeføjelse, selv om denne bestemmelse ikke udtrykkeligt henviser til, at Kommissionen skal vedtage en »beslutning« 7.
In the Court of First Instance’s view, Article 3a(2) of the Directive confers on the Commission the power to make a decision, notwithstanding the fact that the provision does not expressly refer to the adoption by the Commission of a ‘decision’. 7
5 — Præmis 89.6 — Præmis 94 og 95.7 — Præmis 107.
5 — Paragraph 89.6 — Paragraphs 94 and 95.7 — Paragraph 107.
Retten påpegede, at det fremgår af fast retspraksis, at der foreligger retsakter eller
The Court of First Instance held that the contested measure was the letter of 28 July 2000, in which the Commission informed the United Kingdom that the measures adopted by that Member State under Article 3a of the Directive were compatible with Community law.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT BOT — SAG C-125/06 P
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-125/06 P jurisdiction, and that in which it wished to assign those rights to a television broadcaster established in another Member State.
Retten har endvidere undersøgt Infronts søgsmålskompetence.
The Court of First Instance then examined Infront’s standing to bring the proceedings.
Den fandt, at selskabet var umiddelbart og individuelt berørt af den anfægtede skrivelse af følgende grunde.
It held that Infront was directly and individually concerned by the contested letter for the following reasons.
A — Spørgsmålet, om Infront er umiddelbart berørt
A — The question whether Infront was directly concerned
For så vidt angår den første situation har Retten anført, at Infront ikke var umiddelbart berørt af den anfægtede retsakt, fordi Kommissionens godkendelse af de af Det Forenede Kongerige anmeldte foranstaltninger ikke har nogen betydning for deres anvendelse i denne medlemsstat 9.
As regards the first case, the Court of First Instance held that Infront was not directly concerned by the contested measure because the approval, by the Commission, of the measures notified by the United Kingdom had no bearing on their applicability in that Member State. 9
Retten har for det første bemærket, at det fremgår af fast retspraksis, at en fællesskabsretsakt — for at en borger i henhold til artikel 230, stk. 4, EF kan anses for umiddelbart berørt heraf — umiddelbart skal have indvirkning på den pågældendes retsstilling, og dens gennemførelse skal ske helt automatisk, udelukkende i medfør af fællesskabsreglerne og uden anvendelse af andre mellemkommende regler 8.
The Court of First Instance noted, first of all, that it has consistently been held that, in order to be of direct concern to an individual within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, the Community measure in question must directly affect the applicant’s legal situation and its implementation must be purely automatic and result from Community rules alone without the application of other intermediate rules. 8
Retten påpegede, at disse foranstaltninger var trådt i kraft i Det Forenede Kongerige inden deres anmeldelse til Kommissionen, og de kan derfor have haft retsvirkninger i denne stat inden anmeldelsen.
It noted, in that regard, that the measures entered into force in the United Kingdom prior to their notification to the Commission and were therefore capable of producing legal effects there before such notification.
Retten har heraf udledt, at Kommissionen ikke med den anfægtede skrivelse har kunnet give Det Forenede Kongerige en forudgående bemyndigelse til at træffe disse foranstaltninger eller givet tilladelse til, at disse foranstaltninger kunne benyttes med tilbagevirkende kraft, men kun har givet denne stat mulighed for at drage fordel af de andre medlemsstaters gensidige anerkendelse af disse foranstaltninger 10.
It concluded that the Commission, by the contested letter, could neither grant the United Kingdom prior authorisation to adopt those measures nor authorise their retrospective maintenance, but only enabled that State to profit from their mutual recognition by the other Member States. 10
For så vidt angår den anden situation, hvor Infront overdrager sine transmissionsrettigheder til et tv-spredningsforetagende,
As regards the second case, the Court of First Instance stated that the Member State other than the United Kingdom in which
Retten undersøgte dernæst, om Infront i lyset af denne retspraksis var umiddelbart berørt i de to situationer, som selskabet påberåber sig i sagen. Det drejer sig for det første om den situation, hvor tv-senderettighe-derne til slutrundekampene i FIFA’s verdensmesterskaber, som Infront er indehaver af for årene 2002 og 2006, bliver solgt til et
It then examined whether, in the light of that caselaw, Infront was directly concerned in the two cases envisaged by Infront in its action, namely that in which the television broadcasting rights for the matches of the FIFA World Cup finals, which it held for 2002 and 2006, were sold by it, for retransmission in the United Kingdom, to a television broadcaster under the United Kingdom’s
9 — Præmis 133.10 — Præmis 134 og 135.
9 — Paragraph 133.10 — Paragraphs 134 and 135.
KOMMISSIONEN MOD INFRONT WM der er etableret i en anden medlemsstat end Det Forenede Kongerige, er denne anden medlemsstat forpligtet til at sikre, at det pågældende foretagende ikke unddrager sig de af Kommissionen godkendte foranstaltninger, og at denne forpligtelse følger af den anfægtede skrivelse, som medfører, at disse foranstaltninger ex nunc får virkning med henblik på de andre medlemsstaters anerkendelse heraf 11.
COMMISSION v INFRONT WM legislation implementing Article 3a(3) of the Directive, those authorities must ensure that broadcasters under their jurisdiction comply with the conditions for broadcasting the events in question as defined by the Member State in its measures approved and published in the Official Journal by the Commission’.
fastsættes af hver medlemsstat i den lovgivning, der gennemfører direktivets artikel 3a, stk. 3, skal disse myndigheder sikre, at de tv-spredningsforetagender, der hører under deres jurisdiktion, iagttager de bestemmelser om dækning af de omhandlede begivenheder, som medlemsstaten har foreskrevet i de foranstaltninger, der af Kommissionen er blevet godkendt og offentliggjort i EF-Tidende« 13.
13 the television broadcaster which acquired Infront’s broadcasting rights was established would be required to satisfy itself that that broadcaster did not circumvent the measures approved by the Commission and that that obligation arose from the contested letter which validated those measures, thenceforth, for the purposes of their mutual recognition by the other Member States. 11