Exercising control over other EU countries' TV shows
All audiovisual media, including our favourite TV shows from across the EU, whether they are delivered as traditional broadcasts or as on-demand services, are governed by the AVMSD. Similarly to other goods and services, this type of media must follow rules that apply across the EU.
The purpose of the AVMSD, as set out by the European Commission is to move towards:
- providing rules to shape technological development
- creating a level playing field for emerging audiovisual media
- preserving cultural diversity
- protecting children and consumers
- safeguarding media pluralism
- combating racial and religious hatred
- guaranteeing the independence of national media regulators
The AVMSD is part of the “Digital Single Market” strategy. If you are reading this in the UK you are probably already asking – how is this relevant in light of Brexit? In September 2018 the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport published government guidance for media services providers in relation to broadcasting and on-demand services, in the event that there is ‘no-deal’ in Brexit negotiations.
Please see our review and analysis of the main points from that guidance here.
However, given that broadcasters in the UK may also have – or may be seeking to obtain – relevant EU licences which could reduce the impact of a ‘no-deal’ Brexit on the delivery of their services outside of the UK, we think the Advocate General’s Opinion is still of interest.
Baltic Media Alliance C-622/17, ECJ
Baltic Media Alliance, which is a UK registered company, broadcasts a particular channel into Lithuania. The Radio and Television Commission of Lithuania imposed a restriction on operators broadcasting that channel by any means to Lithuanian consumers, whereby it could only be broadcast as part of a paid-for package.
Enshrined in Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is the freedom to provide services within the EU. One of the questions considered in the Advocate General’s Opinion was whether or not this measure adopted in Lithuania to restrict certain transmissions from another EU Member State was compatible with this fundamental freedom.
While the AVMSD requires Member States not to restrict retransmissions of broadcasts from other Member States for reasons such as incitement to hatred, it does not go so far as to prevent Lithuania from adopting a measure such as requiring the broadcast of a particular channel to be available only to consumers who subscribe to an appropriate package.
Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe considered that a measure such as that taken in Lithuania, on public interest grounds, did not impede the retransmission or reception of the relevant channel as it could still be legally broadcast and viewed by consumers who subscribed to the relevant package.
It was concluded that the measure adopted was indeed compatible with the freedom to provide services within the EU under Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and it was justified and proportionate. Lithuania was legitimately seeking to protect its consumers from propaganda which could incite hatred and adopted a reasonable measure to do so.
An interesting side point which arose from the Opinion was the observation that in this instance, the UK registered company was in fact broadcasting predominantly Russian language programmes solely into Lithuania. Could it be that countries outside the EU could take advantage of the freedom of broadcasting and distribution of content within the EU by simply retransmitting their programmes through an EU-based company?
It must be noted that the Judges of the European Court of Justice are not bound by the Advocate General’s Opinion. It is an independent proposal of a legal solution to a case which is under the European Court of Justice’s review and which the Judges may consider in their ongoing deliberations. Judgment has not yet been given in this case, so watch this space for a further update.
This article was written by Tanya Wilkie. For more information, please contact Tanya on +44 (0)20 7203 5058 or at firstname.lastname@example.org.
When can you set off claims against different elements of a project
The Court’s decision raises important drafting considerations for construction contracts involving multiple elements of a project.
Drafting terms and conditions or negotiating a contract? Be wary of "unusual" and "exorbitant" exclusion clauses
When drafting a set of terms and conditions, companies must adhere to the requirements contained in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
Stop, collaborate and listen: Top 10 Tips with Collaboration Agreements
Providing you with the top ten tips on collaboration agreements - what should you know?
Preparing your company for sale
We set out here some initial steps to consider in anticipation of a sale.
ESG investment and the challenges for trustees
What challenges does the ESG revolution present for trustees of private family trusts?
The impact of COVID-19 on commercial and residential tenancies
What impact has COVID-19 had on commercial and residential tenancies? Read more here.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises discoverIE on its acquisition of Antenova
discoverIE is a leading international designer, manufacturer and supplier of customised electronics to industry.
Q&A: Separate blocks, common parts and enfranchisement
Miriam Seitler and Lauren Fraser answer queries relating to leaseholders seeking to acquire the freehold.
2020: Influencer, 2021: Creative Director – what could go wrong?
Coded messages for landlords and tenants
“What does the code of practice mean for landlords and tenants? Read more here”
The family court’s role in micro managing 'trivial' disputes
The recent decision has dealt with the family court’s role in micro managing “trivial” disputes in relation to children
Taxing horizons and fiscal black holes
A super-massive black hole at the centre of the nation’s finances means that tax reform and rates rises look increasingly likely.
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Acora on acquisition of Westgate IT
Westgate IT specialises in providing IT support to businesses in the South West.
Jason Saiban writes for Food Manufacture on the food industry's climate change challenge
The key challenge will be how the environmental targets are actually met.
Q&A: Wrestling with restrictive covenants
Camilla Lamont (barrister at Landmark Chambers) and Real Estate Disputes Partner Emma Humphreys answer a pair of covenant queries
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Grape Paradise on the acquisition of a fine wine business
Charles Russell Speechlys has advised Grape Paradise on the acquisition of the Sarment Group in the China Mainland territories.
Grab the tail by the horns - Why is tail spend so critical in today’s outsourced portfolio?
It’s usually invisible, but in all likelihood, you’ve got tail spend.
Collateral Warranties – Are they also a ‘Construction Contract’?
What are collateral warranties and what do they mean for your construction contracts? Read more here.
Succession Planning for Landed Estates
The first in our series of articles on succession planning for landed estates covering a wide variety of matters.