natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
KOMMISSIONEN MOD INFRONT WM skabsreglerne og uden anvendelse af andre mellemkommende regler 20.
COMMISSION v INFRONT WM it directly affects his legal situation and its implementation is purely automatic and results from Community rules alone without the application of other intermediate rules. 20 tion.
har haft en rimelig mulighed for at købe de pågældende enerettigheder. I den danske ordning kan et tv-spredningsforetagende, som har købt enerettighederne, derimod kun udøve dem, hvis det er i stand til at træffe foranstaltninger, som kan sikre den nødvendige dækning ved andre tv-radiosprednings-organers mellemkomst, medmindre det kan bevise, at det ikke med rimelighed er muligt.
Under the Danish system, on the other hand, a television broadcaster which has acquired exclusive rights may exercise them only if it is able to make arrangements to ensure the necessary coverage through other broadcasters, unless it can show that this is not reasonably possible.
Kommissionen har kritiseret Retten for ikke at have påvist, at hver af disse to betingelser var opfyldt.
The Commission complains that the Court of First Instance did not demonstrate that each of those two conditions was satisfied.
Det er således fejlagtigt at hævde, at anvendelsen af Kommissionens beslutning i medfør af direktivets artikel 3a, stk. 2, er sket helt automatisk og udelukkende i medfør af fællesskabsreglerne.
It is therefore wrong to maintain that the implementation of the Commission’s decision under Article 3a(2) of the Directive is purely automatic and results from Community rules alone.
For det første hvad angår virkningerne af den anfægtede retsakt på Infronts situation har Kommissionen principalt gjort gældende, at retsakten kun havde indirekte økonomiske konsekvenser for dette selskab, og at dets retsstilling forblev uændret.
As regards, first, the contested measure’s effects on Infront’s situation, the Commission argues primarily that the contested measure would produce, for that company, only indirect economic consequences and that its legal position would remain unaltered.
Jeg deler ikke denne vurdering af følgende grunde.
I do not agree with that analysis for the following reasons.
Infront bestrider denne vurdering og hævder, at Retten med føje fandt, at den anfægtede retsakt berører selskabet umiddelbart.
Infront challenges that analysis and submits that the Court of First Instance correctly held that the contested measure concerned it directly.
Bedømmelse
Appraisal
Som Retten har bemærket i den appellerede doms præmis 165, fratager de af Det Forenede Kongerige anmeldte foranstaltninger og følgelig den anfægtede retsakt Infront muligheden for frit at kunne disponere over sine tv-senderettigheder til slutrundekampene i FIFA’s verdensmesterskaber i 2002 og 2006.
As the Court of First Instance stated in paragraph 165 of the judgment under appeal, the measures notified by the United Kingdom and, consequently, the contested measure have the effect of depriving Infront of the power freely to dispose of its television broadcasting rights to the 2002 and 2006 FIFA World Cup finals.
I medfør af denne retsakt hindres Infront i at overdrage sine transmissionsrettigheder — i form af en eneret — til en betalings-tv-kanal, der er etableret i
By virtue of the contested measure, Infront is prevented from granting those broadcasting rights exclusively to a pay television channel established
20 — Dom af 5.5.1998, sag C-386/96 P, Dreyfus mod Kommissionen, Sml. I, s. 2309, præmis 43 og den deri nævnte retspraksis.
20 — Case C-386/96 Dreyfus v Commission [1998] ECR I-2309, paragraph 43 and the caselaw cited.
Som Retten har påpeget, anses en borger for at være umiddelbart berørt af en fællesskabsretsakt, når denne umiddelbart har indvirkning på den pågældendes retsstilling, og gennemførelsen af akten skal ske helt automatisk, udelukkende i medfør af fælles-
As the Court of First Instance noted, a Community measure is to be considered of direct concern to an individual where
en anden medlemsstat end Det Forenede Kongerige, og som ønsker at sende disse begivenheder i denne stat.
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-125/06 P in a Member State other than the United Kingdom and which wishes to broadcast the World Cup finals in the United Kingdom.
Infront får pålagt forpligtelsen til at sikre, at de omhandlede rettigheder ligeledes er tilgængelige for en gratis tv-radiospredningsvirksomhed, der dækker en stor del af den britiske befolkning.
Infront is required to guarantee that those rights are also available to a broadcaster of free television covering a large proportion of the United Kingdom population.
Efter min opfattelse rejser Kommissionens argumentation tvivl om spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt Infront havde en retlig inter -esse i søgsmålet snarere end om betingelsen, hvorefter selskabet skal være umiddelbart berørt af den anfægtede retsakt.
I consider that these arguments of the Commission raise the issue of whether Infront had a legal interest in bringing the proceedings rather than that of the requirement that it must be directly concerned by the contested measure.
Den nævnte argumentation er nemlig ensbetydende med at hævde, at annullation af retsakten ikke vil give Infront nogen fordel, eftersom der under ingen omstændigheder findes en potentiel erhverver af de tv-senderettigheder, som Infront er indehaver af, uden for Det Forenede Kongerige.
They amount to a submission that the annulment of the contested measure would bring Infront no advantage since there was, in any case, no potential purchaser outside the United Kingdom of the broadcasting rights it held.
Den anfægtede retsakts indvirkning på Infronts situation medfører således ikke alene en rent økonomisk skade gennem en nedsættelse af markedsværdien af dets tv-senderettigheder til slutrundekampene i FIFA’s verdensmesterskaber i 2002 og 2006.
The contested measure’s impact on Infront’s situation is therefore reflected not only in purely economic loss, through a diminution in the market value of its broadcasting rights to the 2002 and 2006 FIFA World Cup finals.
Den viser sig ligeledes ved en krænkelse af selskabets ejendomsret, ved en begrænsning af dets ret til at overdrage eksklusive licenser.
The impact also takes the form of infringement of its right to property, by impeding its right to grant exclusive licences.
Retten har således efter min mening med føje fundet, at den anfægtede retsakt indvirkede på Infronts retsstilling i henhold til retspraksis.
The Court of First Instance therefore decided, in my opinion, correctly and in accordance with the caselaw that the contested measure affected Infront’s legal situation.
Det fremgår af fast retspraksis, at ud over betingelserne i artikel 230 EF skal en borger, som anfægter en fællesskabsretsakt, have en retlig interesse i søgsmålet, dvs. at han skal have en retlig interesse i, at retsakten bliver annulleret. Dette indebærer, at søgsmålet med sit resultat kan tilføre den part, der har anlagt det, en fordel 21.
It is settled caselaw that, in addition to the conditions set out in Article 230 EC, an individual who challenges a Community measure must have a legal interest in bringing the proceedings, that is to say that he must have an interest in its annulment.
Som Kommissionen har påpeget, påhviler det ganske vist sagsøgeren at bevise, at han også opfylder denne betingelse for, at
Admittedly, as the Commission points out, it is for the applicant to prove that he also satisfies this condition as to
Kommissionen har subsidiært gjort gældende, at den anfægtede retsakt i realiteten ikke har nogen følger for Infront, fordi intet tv-spredningsforetagende, der er etableret i en anden medlemsstat end Det Forenede Kongerige, kan antages at erhverve rettighederne til at sende slutrundekampene i FIFA’s verdensmesterskaber med henblik på at sende dem i denne stat.
The Commission also argues, in the alternative, that the contested measure, in reality, had no effect on Infront because there was no television broadcaster established in a Member State other than the United Kingdom which would be liable to acquire the broadcasting rights to the FIFA World Cup finals in order to broadcast them in the United Kingdom.
Retten har endvidere vendt bevisbyrden ved at give indtryk af, at det påhviler Kommissionen at bevise disse
In addition, the Court of First Instance reversed the burden of proof by indicating that it was for the Commission to prove those facts and it made an error of law in its determination of the effect of Article 3a of the Directive.
KOMMISSIONEN MOD INFRONT WM søgsmålet kan antages til realitetsbehandling 22.
COMMISSION v INFRONT WM the admissibility of his action.
En manglende retlig interesse i søgs-
22Lack of an interest in bringing the proceedings is also an absolute bar to proceedings. 23In addi-
Selv om det, for så vidt angår bevisbyrden, påhviler den person, der forfølger annullation af en fællesskabsretsakt, at føre bevis for den retlige interesse i søgsmålet, forholder det sig ikke desto mindre således, at dette krav ikke kan fritage Kommissionen for at føre bevis for de faktiske forhold, den påberåber sig, som for enhver anden part i en retslig procedure.
On the burden of proof, while, as we have seen, it is the individual seeking the annulment of a Community measure who has to establish his interest in bringing the proceedings, the fact remains that that requirement cannot relieve the Commission of the duty to adduce evidence of the matters of fact upon which it relies, like any other party to legal proceedings.
målet udgør desuden manglende opfyldelse af en ufravigelig procesforudsætning 23. Endvidere må Kommissionen gives medhold i understregningen af, at det ikke kan udledes af direktivets artikel 3a, stk. 3, at der for hver begivenhed, der angives af en medlemsstat, nødvendigvis skal findes tv-spredningsfore-tagender i andre medlemsstater, der kan købe de eksklusive transmissionsrettigheder til den pågældende begivenhed i den første stat.
tion, the Commission is right in submitting that it cannot follow from Article 3a(3) of the Directive 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.
I denne sag har Kommissionen inden for sin formalitetsindsigelse vedrørende den af Infront anlagte sag anført, at tv-sende-markedet i Det Forenede Kongerige er et af de mest konkurrencedygtige i Europa, og at 25 % af tv-spredningsforetagenderne har en licens i denne medlemsstat.
In this case, the Commission submitted, in its objection to the admissibility of Infront’s action, that the television market in the United Kingdom is one of the most competitive in Europe and that 25% of television broadcasters are licenced in that Member State.
Det er på grundlag af disse konstateringer, at den har gjort gældende, at man vanskeligt kan forestille sig, at Infront overdrager sine rettigheder til transmission af slutrundekampene i FIFA’s verdensmesterskaber til et tv-spred-ningsforetagende, der ikke er etableret i Det Forenede Kongerige.
It was on the basis of those statements that it claimed that it was difficult to envisage that Infront would assign its broadcasting rights to the FIFA World Cup finals to a broadcaster not established in the United Kingdom.
Jeg mener således ikke, at Retten har vendt bevisbyrden eller fejlfortolket direktivets artikel 3a.
None the less, I do not consider that the Court of First Instance reversed the burden of proof or misinterpreted Article 3a of the Directive.
22 — Kendelse af 31.7.1989, sag 206/89, S. mod Kommissionen, Sml. s. 2841, præmis 8.
22 — Order in Case 206/89 R S. v Commission [1989] ECR 2841, paragraph 8.
Retten har efter min mening ikke vendt bevisbyrden for den retlige interesse i søgsmålet ved at konstatere, at ovennævnte konstateringer for så vidt angår de særlige kendetegn ved tv-sendemarkedet i Det Forenede Kongerige ikke kunne tages i betragtning, fordi de ikke var underbygget.
By finding that those statements regarding the specificity of the television market in the United Kingdom could not be taken into account because they were unsupported, the Court of First Instance did not, in my view, reverse the burden of proving an interest in bringing proceedings.
Det påhvilede så meget desto mere Kommissionen at begrunde berettigelsen af sådanne konstateringer, som Infront havde bestridt dem og ved Retten havde nævnt flere potentielle erhververe af sine transmissionsrettigheder, der var etableret i andre medlemsstater end Det Forenede Kongerige.
The onus was all the more on the Commission to establish the truth of those statements as Infront disputed them and had, before the Court of First Instance, referred to several potential purchasers of its broadcasting rights established in Member States other than the United Kingdom.
etableret på den medlemsstats område, som har benyttet den mulighed, der indeholdes i direktivets artikel 3a, reelt i stand til at købe disse rettigheder, rejser Kommissionen tvivl om den reelle nytte af den med denne bestemmelse indførte procedure med gensidig anerkendelse.
of television broadcasters’ revenues, only broadcasters established in the territory of the Member State which has exercised the power made available by Article 3a of the Directive are really in a position to purchase those rights, the Commission casts doubt on the practical relevance of the mutual recognition procedure created by that provision.
Hvad endvidere angår den præmis i den appellerede dom, hvorefter Kommissionens argumentation ophæver den tilsigtede virkning af direktivets artikel 3a, mener jeg ikke, at den udgør en fejlfortolkning af denne bestemmelse.
Next, I do not consider that the ground of the judgment under appeal that the Commission’s argument deprives Article 3a of the Directive of all practical effect constitutes a misinterpretation of that provision.
Hvis kun tv-spredningsforetagender, der er etableret i en medlemsstat, som har besluttet, at bestemte sportsbegivenheder skal sendes til hele offentligheden, kan erhverve eneretten til transmission af sådanne begivenheder, er proceduren i direktivets artikel 3a, stk. 3, der har til formål at sikre, at de foranstaltninger, der træffes af denne medlemsstat, overholdes af tv-spred-ningsforetagender, der er etableret på andre medlemsstaters territorium, nytteløs.
Indeed, if only television broadcasters established in the Member State which has decided that certain designated sporting events must be broadcast to the entire population were liable to acquire the exclusive broadcasting rights to such events, the procedure laid down by Article 3a(3) of the Directive, which is intended to ensure compliance with the measures taken by that Member State by television broadcasters established in other Member States, would be deprived of relevance.
Denne præmis er nemlig et svar på Kommissionens argumentation, der er sammenfattet i den appellerede doms præmis 120, hvorefter under hensyn til, at tv-spred-ningsforetagenders indtjening stammer fra reklamekampagner, der henvender sig til det nationale publikum, fra opkrævning af licens eller fra abonnementer til betalings-tv, kun foretagender, der kan komme i kontakt med en stor del af det nationale publikum og følgelig er etableret i Det Forenede Kongerige, vil acceptere at købe de eksklusive tv-senderettigheder, som Infront er indehaver af.
That ground answers the Commission’s argument, summarised in paragraph 120 of the judgment under appeal, that in view of the fact that the income of television broadcasters is generated from advertising directed at the national audience, national licence fees or national subscription fees for pay television, only broadcasters reaching a high proportion of the national population and, consequently, established in the United Kingdom, were prepared to purchase the exclusive broadcasting rights held by Infront.
Ved således at hævde, at under hensyn til de meget høje priser på eneret til tv-sende-rettigheder til sportsbegivenheder som slutrundekampene i FIFA’s verdensmesterskaber og oprindelsen til tv-spredningsforetagen-ders indtjening er kun foretagender, der er
By submitting thus that, in the light of the very high price of exclusive broadcasting rights to sporting events such as the FIFA World Cup finals and of the sources
Retten har således ikke udtalt, som Kommissionen angiver i appellen, at direktivets artikel 3a, stk. 3, betyder, at for en hvilken som helst begivenhed, der er angivet af en medlemsstat, findes der nødvendigvis tv-spredningsforetagender etableret i andre medlemsstater, der kan købe eneretten til at sende den pågældende begivenhed.
The Court of First Instance therefore did not, as the Commission asserts in its appeal, say that Article 3a(3) of the Directive means that, for no matter what event designated by a Member State, there are necessarily television broadcasters established in other Member States who are liable to acquire the exclusive broadcasting rights to that event.
Retten har givet et svar på Kommissionens argumentation, hvorefter for sportsbegivenheder
It was responding to the Commission’s argument that, for sporting events such as those for which Infront holds the television
KOMMISSIONEN MOD INFRONT WM som dem, hvortil tv-senderettighederne indehaves af Infront, der ikke er andre potentielle erhververe til denne eneret end nationale tv-spredningsforetagender.
COMMISSION v INFRONT WM broadcasting rights, there are no potential purchasers of those exclusive broadcasting rights other than the national television broadcasters.
Det følger heraf, at Retten ikke har undladt at påvise, at betingelsen om, at den anfægtede retsakt indvirker på Infronts retsstilling, er opfyldt.
It follows that the Court of First Instance did not fail to demonstrate that the requirement that the contested measure actually affect Infront’s legal situation is satisfied.
Betingelsen i henhold til retspraksis er opfyldt, når denne indvirkning er en direkte følge af retsakten selv.
The condition required by the caselaw is satisfied where those effects are the direct consequence of the measure itself.
Det er ifølge retspraksis tilfældet, når den pågældende retsakt pålægger adressaterne at skabe de nævnte virkninger 24, eller når adressaterne til den pågældende retsakt kun har en rent teoretisk mulighed for at undlade at efterkomme retsakten og skabe sådanne virkninger, og der ikke er nogen tvivl om, at de vil give retsakten virkninger efter dens indhold 25.
Such is the case, according to the caselaw, where the measure in question requires those to whom it is addressed to produce those effects, 24 or where the possibility of those to whom that measure is addressed not giving effect to it and not producing such effects is purely theoretical, because their intention to act in conformity with it is not in doubt. 25
I den foreliggende sag har Retten med føje bemærket i den appellerede doms præmis 146, at den anfægtede retsakt ikke overlader noget skøn til sine adressater, fordi den pålægger dem at skabe de virkninger på Infronts retsstilling, som selskabet har anfægtet.
In this case, the Court of First Instance correctly held, in paragraph 146 of the judgment under appeal, that the contested measure leaves the national authorities no discretion, because it requires them to produce the effects on Infront’s legal situation of which Infront complains.
Hvad for det andet angår den anden betingelse, der kan udledes af retspraksis, hvorefter gennemførelsen af den anfægtede retsakt skal ske helt automatisk, udelukkende som følge af fællesskabsretsreglerne og uden anvendelse af andre mellemkommende regler, er det min opfattelse, at Retten heller ikke har begået nogen retlig fejl ved sin bedømmelse, hvorefter denne betingelse ligeledes er opfyldt.
As regards, secondly, the second condition under the caselaw, according to which the contested measure’s implementation must be purely automatic and result from Community rules alone without the application of other intermediate rules, I consider that the Court of First Instance likewise made no error of law in finding that that condition is also satisfied.
Som tidligere anført består disse virkninger i en begrænsning af selskabets mulighed for at overdrage eneretten til transmission af slutrundekampene i FIFA’s verdensmesterskaber til et tv-sprednings-foretagende, der er etableret i en anden medlemsstat end Det Forenede Kongerige.
As we saw earlier, those effects consist of an impediment to its ability to dispose of the exclusive broadcasting rights to the FIFA World Cup finals to a television broadcaster established in a Member State other than the United Kingdom.
De omhandlede virkninger fremstår som en direkte følge af den anfægtede retsakt,
Those effects do seem to be the direct consequence of the contested
24 — Dommen i sagen Dreyfus mod Kommissionen, præmis 43 og den deri nævnte retspraksis.
24 — Dreyfus v Commission, paragraph 43 and the caselaw cited.25 — Ibidem, paragraph 44 and the caselaw cited.
Hvad der er vigtigt at vurdere i undersøgelsen af den omhandlede betingelse, er
Admittedly, as the Commission points out, Article 3a(3) of the Directive leaves the Member States a discretion in the implementation of the measures taken by a Member State and published by the Commission.
25 — Samme dom, præmis 44 og den deri nævnte retspraksis.
However, that discretion is not such as to call into question Infront’s standing to bring the proceedings.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT BOT — SAG C-125/06 P eftersom de følger umiddelbart af de foranstaltninger, der er taget af Det Forenede Kongerige med sigte på at opnå, at denne begivenhed sendes på dets område af en gratis tv-kanal med adgang for en stor del af befolkningen.
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-125/06 P measure, since they result directly from the measures adopted by the United Kingdom, which are intended to procure the broadcasting of that event in its territory by a free television channel accessible to a high proportion of the population.
Kommissionen har påpeget, at Retten ikke har angivet, at den anfægtede retsakt i forhold til indehaverne udgør en bred vifte af individuelle beslutninger.
the Court of First Instance did not say that the contested measure is, as regards the rights holders, a bundle of individual decisions.
Kommissionen understreger, at retsakten kun er rettet til tv-spred-ningsforetagender og kun pålægger disse forpligtelser.
It also points out that that measure covers only television broadcasters, imposing obligations solely on them.
Rettighedsindehaverne rammes kun af de økonomiske følger, og Retten har i foregående sager fastslået, at dette ikke udgjorde et tilstrækkeligt element til at individualisere en person 26. Kommissionen
Rights holders suffer only economic consequences and the Court of First Instance, in earlier cases, held that that is not sufficient to differentiate an individual.
I betragtning af disse forhold mener jeg, at Rettens bedømmelse, hvorefter Infront er umiddelbart berørt af den anfægtede retsakt, ikke er behæftet med nogen retlig fejl, og at Kommissionens appel på dette punkt skal forkastes som ugrundet.
In view of those matters, I take the view that the Court of First Instance’s finding that Infront was directly concerned by the contested measure is not vitiated by an error of law and that the Commission’s appeal on that point should be dismissed as unfounded.
B — Bedømmelsen, hvorefter Infront er individuelt berørt
B — The finding that Infront was individually concerned
Kommissionen har hævdet, at Infront ikke befinder sig i en anden situation end de øvrige indehavere af eneret til transmission af forskellige begivenheder angivet af Det Forenede Kongerige.
The Commission maintains that Infront’s situation is no different from that of other holders of exclusive rights to broadcast the various events designated by the United Kingdom.
Selskabet står over for en normal forretningsrisiko, hvilket ikke er tilstrækkeligt til at give det ret til at anlægge søgsmål.
It faces a normal commercial risk, which is insufficient to confer upon it a right of action.
Kommissionen har gjort gældende, at Rettens ræsonnement er vanskeligt at forstå.
The Commission argues that the Court of First Instance’s reasoning is difficult to understand.