menuMENU    UK Free TV logo Freesat



Click to see updates

Karen Murphy scores against the Premier League and Sky

In the view of Advocate General Kokott, territorial exclusivity agreements relating to the transmission of football matches are contrary to European Union law.

In the view of Advocate General Kokott, territorial exclusivity
published on UK Free TV

European Union law does not make it possible to prohibit the live transmission of Premier League football matches in pubs by means of foreign decoder cards

The Football Association Premier League Ltd (the FAPL) is the marketing organisation for the top English football league. The FAPL essentially grants its licensees the exclusive right to broadcast matches and exploit them economically within their respective broadcasting areas, generally the country in question. In order to safeguard this exclusivity, licensees are obliged to prevent their broadcasts from being able to be viewed outside their respective broadcasting areas. To that end, each licensee is required to encrypt its satellite signal and to transmit it in encrypted form to subscribers within its assigned territory. Subscribers can decrypt the signal using a decoder, which requires a decoder card. The exclusivity agreement also imposes restrictions on the circulation of authorised decoder cards outside the territory of each licensee.

The main proceedings in the present references for preliminary rulings concern attempts to circumvent this exclusivity. Companies import decoder cards from abroad, in the present proceedings from Greece, into the United Kingdom and offer them to pubs at more favourable prices than the broadcaster in that State. This practice makes it possible for pubs in the UK to show the live transmission of Premier League football matches using a Greek decoder card. The FAPL is attempting to stop that practice by means of a judicial ruling. Case C-403/08 concerns civil-law actions brought by the FAPL against the use of foreign decoder cards. Case C-429/08 relates to criminal proceedings which have been brought against the landlady of a pub who used a Greek decoder card to show Premier League matches. The High Court has, in each set of proceedings, referred several questions to the Court of Justice on the interpretation of EU law.

Advocate General Juliane Kokott explains that the exclusivity rights in question have the effect of partitioning the internal market into quite separate national markets, something which constitutes a serious impairment of the freedom to provide services.

With regard to possible justification for the restriction of the freedom to provide services, the Advocate General examines the protection of industrial and commercial property and, in particular, addresses the question whether live satellite transmissions of football matches involve rights the specific subject-matter of which requires a partitioning of the internal market. In this connection she first states that the specific subject-matter of the rights in live football transmissions lies in their commercial exploitation. In the present cases, the live transmission of Premier League football matches is exploited, in particular, through the charge imposed for the decoder cards. Advocate General Kokott takes the view in this connection that the economic exploitation of the rights in question is not undermined by the use of foreign decoder cards, as the corresponding charges have been paid for those cards. Whilst those charges are not as high as the charges imposed in the United Kingdom, there is, according to the Advocate General, no specific right to charge different prices for a work in each Member State. Rather, it forms part of the logic of the internal market that price differences between different Member States should be offset by trade. The marketing of broadcasting rights on the basis of territorial exclusivity is tantamount to profiting from the elimination of the internal market. Consequently, the specific subject-matter of the rights in the transmission of football matches does not justify a partitioning of the internal market, and thus also does not justify the resulting restriction of the freedom to provide services.

Advocate General Kokott further takes the view that the contractual restriction on using decoder cards in the State of origin only for domestic or private use, but not for commercial use – for which a higher subscription charge is payable – also cannot justify a territorial restriction of the freedom to provide services. The Member State concerned may, however, in principle make provision for rights which allow authors to object to the communication of their works in pubs.

So far as concerns the question whether the showing of live transmissions of football matches in pubs infringes the exclusive right of communication to the public of protected works within the terms of the Copyright in the Information Society Directive, the Advocate General explains that, as EU law stands at present, there are no comprehensive rights which protect the communication of a broadcast to the public where no entrance fee is charged.

Advocate General Kokott further expresses the view that the application of the principle of the freedom to provide services is also in line with the Satellite and Cable Directive and with European competition law. Equally, neither does the Conditional Access Directive constitute a barrier to the use of foreign decoder cards.

NOTE: The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are responsible. The Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in the present cases. Judgment will be given at a later date.

NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised

Help with Free satellite?
What can I do when my Sky Digibox says 'No Signal' or 'Technical fau1
Can I receive UK TV in Ghana?2
What is a CA module?3
My box says "No Satellite signal being received"4
Is there any way I can get free channels via satellite and have the kind of hard5
In this section
Show me the 55 TV channels have moved to the new Astra 2G satellite 1
Good news for Freesat? Astra 2E satellite launched2
No satellite signal? Check your dish for snow!3
New satellite footprints page4
BBC satellite changes: radio, BBC ONE HD, Red button reduction 12-15 October 2015
Changes to BBC HD transmissions on Astra satellites on 20 September 20126

Tuesday, 8 February 2011

8:10 PM

hi geting more channel freeview

link to this comment
james's 49 posts GB
Thursday, 10 February 2011
Simon Richards
9:32 AM

Jordy I like your post. Liverpool have paid £35 Million for a player who has had 1/2 a successfully season in the Premier League.

Sky don't have the same view this is what was said last July by Mike Darcey Sky's chief operating officer -

"We're happy to compete on a level playing field. But it's not Ofcom's job to help BT sell our channels for less than they're worth. In the long run, undermining the value of TV is bad for investment, for sport and for consumers,".

Full article War breaks out between BT and Sky over pricing of Sky Sports channels | Business | The Guardian

link to this comment
Simon Richards's 20 posts GB

4:08 PM

hi new channel tba on freeview 45

link to this comment
james's 49 posts GB
Friday, 11 February 2011

12:57 PM

Dave : If everybody paid SKY (and all the other pay TV channels for that matter) £0.00, LIVE football would return to free to air TV and SKY would go out of business. There are plenty of free to air channels now.

This will never happen, but if it did, we would all be quids in apart from the footballers of course.

link to this comment
Nedbod's 619 posts GB
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
Wednesday, 16 February 2011

1:29 PM

ty anging more channel on freeview

link to this comment
james's 49 posts GB
Thursday, 8 September 2011

1:27 PM

Briantist: I don't know if this has been mentioned previously, but is it true that the final ruling on the "Karen Murphy" case is to be handed down on the 4th October 2011.

link to this comment
NottsUK's 345 posts GB

1:49 PM

NottsUK: Thanks for that, I shall put it in my diary. This could be a potentially important day, especially in the current economic climate (or lack thereof).

link to this comment
Briantist's 38,844 posts GB

2:05 PM

Briantist: It was a reply by REAL Digital TV to a question on their Facebook wall.

link to this comment
NottsUK's 345 posts GB
Select more comments
Page 4

Your comment please
Please post a question, answer or commentUK Free TV is here to help people. If you are rude or disrespectful all of your posts will be deleted and you will be banned.

Privacy policy: UK Free Privacy policy.