As a preliminary matter, the Court establishes as applicable provision Art. Since it understands that decoders are mere instruments necessary for the provision of the main service consisting of providing audiovisual content to the contracting party

The second question raised revolves around whether the British legislation that prohibits the import, sale and use of foreign decoders is contrary to the provisions of the Union Treaty relating to the free movement of goods and services.

On the basis of the foregoing,

 The Court begins by stating that copyright cannot be invoked over the matches since they cannot be qualified as works within the meaning of the Copyright Directive. “This is so, in particular, in the case of football matches, delimited by rules of the game that leave no room for creative freedom, in the sense of copyright.”

Second, the Court admits that Community law does not preclude the protection of intellectual property rights, allowing the granting of licenses in exchange for remuneration. However, ” they are only assured – as established in the tenth recital of the Copyright Directive and the fifth recital of the Related Rights Directive – an adequate remuneration for each use of the protected objects ” and not the maximum remuneration . The Court even pointed out that the contracts that were weighted based on global audiences and that took into account said data at the time of being quantified would be perfectly valid.

However, referring to the supplement for territorial partitioning,

He indicates that “it can cause artificial price differences between the partitioned national markets. However, such partitioning and the artificial price difference resulting from it are incompatible with the essential objective of the Treaty, which is the completion of the internal market. In these circumstances, such a supplement cannot be considered to form part of the adequate remuneration to be assured to the affected right holders. ”

Therefore, the Court considers that said internal regulations are contrary to the freedom to provide services enshrined in Article 56 of the TFEU.

Next, the Premier tries to justify the restriction

 on the free provision of services in order to encourage public attendance at the stadiums, to which the court states that: “In this regard, even supposing that the objective of encouraging said presence of the public in the stadiums could justify a restriction of fundamental freedoms, suffice it to point out that, in any case, respect for said rule can be guaranteed by means of a contractual limitation incorporated into the contract of license entered into between the rights holders and the 해외스포츠중계, whereby the broadcasters would be obliged not to broadcast those ‘Premier League’ matches during the blackout periods. However, it cannot be denied that such a measure infringes fundamental freedoms to a lesser degree than the application of the restriction at issue in the main proceedings. ”  National (National Selection with Horace Garcia Blanco and Juan Carlos Morales) and La Red (De unary con Nimrod with Fernando Nimrod, Dodos con MacKaye with Enrique Macadam Marquez, Arrau first class with Marcelo Arioso, A good moment with Mariano Clods, One with Martini Liberian). He was also a columnist for The juicer with Ari Paunch and One in the morning with Freddy Villarreal. He has covered events such as: Olympic Games, Junior and Senior World Cups, South American Qualifiers, Copan América, Copra Sudamericana, and Copan Liberators. He teaches courses and seminars on storytelling and commentary.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *