Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T13:30:27.837Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ‘Bond van Adverteerders’ Case and Recent Legal Developments in EEC ‘Television Law’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

Georges Friden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Before the recent adoption, by the Council of Ministers of the EEC, of a directive concerning EEC ‘television law’, technical developments in the European television industry were definitely outpacing legal ones. The emergence of cable and satellite television encouraged both broadcasting companies and advertisers to start operating on a European, instead of merely on a national level. This happened at first in a legal void which was eventually partly filled by the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. Amongst others the relevant cases are the Sacchi Case and Debauve Case. The former established inter alia that the articles of the Treaty of Rome governing the free provision of services, also apply to television transmissions. The latter states that the same applies to cable television services.

Type
Current Legal Developments
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , December 1990 , pp. 231 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. 155/73, ECR 1974,409.

2. 52/79, ECR 1980, 833.

3. 352/85, ECR 1988,2124.

4. O.J. 1990, L 298/23.

5. This is stated in Paragraph 15 of the judgement.

6. See Para. 16 of the judgement.

7. See Para. 26 of the judgement.

8. See Para. 33 of the judgement.

9. See Para. 34 and 35 of the judgement.

10. See Para. 15 of the judgement.

11. It is worth noting that the Court's view would then be more restrictive than the Advocate General's who had chosen to widen the definition given by the Court in the Debauve Case.

12. 286/82 and 26/83, ECR 1984, 377.

13. 353/89 Commission v. The Netherlands.

14. Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda v. Commissariaat Voor De Media, Raad van Stale, 288/89.