No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2017
Observers of the media policies of the European Union contend that the transmission state principle of the Television Without Frontiers Directive, by ruling out the restriction of transfrontier broadcasts, which are in compliance with the laws of the originating state, has signified the end of the broadcasting sovereignty of the Member States. The transmission state principle is central to the objective of the Television Without Frontiers Directive to create an internal market in broadcasting services. Laid down initially in Article 2(2) of Directive 89/552/EEC, it has been transferred to Article 2a(1) following the adoption of the revised Directive 97/36/EC. The meaning of the principle has remained the same: Member States are obliged to ensure the unhindered reception of broadcasts lawfully transmitted in their state of origin. They only have a limited possibility to derogate provisionally from the transmission state principle, when foreign television broadcasts manifestly, seriously and gravely breach provisions concerning the protection of minors or public order.
1 Humphreys, , PJ Mass Media and Media Policy in Western Europe (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1996) 276 Google Scholar.
2 Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the Coordination of Certain Provisions Laid Down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States Concerning the Pursuit of Television Broadcasting Activities, [1989] OJ L 298/23.
3 Article 2a of European Parliament and Council Directive 97/36/EC of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the Coordination of Certain Provisions Laid Down by Law, Regulation and Administrative Action in Member States Concerning the Pursuit of Television Broadcasting Activities, [1997] OJ L 202/60:
1. Member States shall ensure freedom of reception and shall not restrict retransmissions on their territory of television broadcasts from other Member States for reasons which fall within the fields coordinated by this Directive.
2. Member States may, provisionally, derogate from paragraph 1 if the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) a television broadcast coming from another Member State manifestly, seriously and gravely infringes Article 22 (1) or (2) and/or Article 22a;
(b) during the previous 12 months, the broadcaster has infringed the provi-sion(s) referred to in (a) on at least two prior occasions;
(c) the Member State concerned has notified the broadcaster and the Commission in writing of the alleged infringements and of the measures it intends to take should any such infringement occur again;
(d) consultations with the transmitting Member State and the Commission have not produced an amicable settlement within 15 days of the notification provided for in (c), and the alleged infringement persists.
The Commission shall, within two months following notification of the measures taken by the Member State, take a decision on whether the measures are compatible with Community law. If it decides that they are not, the Member State will be required to put an end to the measures in question as a matter of urgency.
3. Para. 2 shall be without prejudice to the application of any procedure, remedy or sanction to the infringements in question in the Member State which has jurisdiction over the broadcaster concerned.
4 Article 22 of Dir. 97/36/EC, [1997] OJ L 202/60:
1. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that television broadcasts by broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not include any programmes which might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, in particular programmes that involve pornography or gratuitous violence.
2. The measures provided for in para. 1 shall also extend to other programmes which are likely to impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors, except where it is ensured, by selecting the time of the broadcast or by any technical measure, that minors in the area of transmission will not normally hear or see such broadcasts.
3. Furthermore, when such programmes are broadcast in unencoded form Member States shall ensure that they are preceded by an acoustic warning or are identified by the presence of a visual symbol throughout their duration.
Article 22a of Dir. 97/36/EC, [1997] OJ L 202/60:
Member States shall ensure that broadcasts do not contain any incitement to hatred on grounds of race, sex, religion or nationality.
5 Case 33/74 Van Binsbergen v Bestuur van de Bedrijsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid [1974] ECR 1299; [1975] 1 CMLR 298; Case 120/78 Rewe Zentrale v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein [1979] ECR 649; [1979] 3 CMLR 494.
6 Weatherill, S and Beaumont, P EU Law. The Essential Guide to the Legal Workings of the European Union, 3rd edn (London, Penguin, 1999) 569 Google Scholar; contra Seidel, M ‘Europa und die Medien’ in Schwarze, J (ed) Fernsehen ohne Grenzen. Die Errichtung des Gemeinsamen Marktes für den Rundfunk, insbesondere über Satellit und Kabel (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1985), 141 Google Scholar.
7 De Witte, B ‘The European Content Requirement in the EC Television Directive—Five Years After’ (1995) I Yearbook of Media and Entertainment Law 101, 105Google Scholar; Drijber, BJ ‘The Revised Television Without Frontiers Directive: Is it Fit for the Next Century?’ (1999) 36 CML Rev 87, 92Google Scholar.
8 Niedobitek, M The Cultural Dimension in EC Law (London, Kluwer Law International, 1997) 162 Google Scholar; see Mestmäcker, EJ, Engel, C, Gabriel-Bräutigam, K and Hoffmann, M Der Einfluβ des europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts auf die deutsche Rundfunkordnung (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1990), 30 Google Scholar; Seidel, M, ‘“Fernsehen ohne Grenzen”. Zum Erlaß der EG-Rundfunkrichtlinie’ (1991) 2 NVwZ 120, 122Google Scholar; ARD/ZDF, ‘EG-Politik im Bereich des Rundfunks—Auswirkungen auf die Rundfunkordnung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’ (1991) MP Dokumentation II 75, 79; Hitchens, LP ‘Identifying European Community Audio-visual Policy in the Dawn of the Information Society’ (1996) II Yearbook of Media and Entertainment Law 45, 65, 70Google Scholar.
9 Barendt, EM Broadcasting Law. A Comparative Study (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1995) 96 ffGoogle Scholar; Ossenbühl, F Rundfunk zwischen nationalem Verfassungsrecht und Europäischem Gemeinschaftsrecht, Rechtsgutachten erstattet der Regierung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (Frankfurt am Main, 1986) 60; Hoffmann-Riem, W Regulating Media: The Licensing and Supervision of Broadcasting in Six Countries (New York, Guilford Press, 1996), 297 ffGoogle Scholar.
10 Recital 13 of Dir. 97/36/EC.
11 Nikoltchev, S ‘Jurisdiction over Broadcasters: EC-Rules, Case Law, and an Ever-Changing Audiovisual Landscape’ in Transfrontier Television in the European Union: Market Impact and Selected Legal Aspects, Background Paper prepared by the European Audiovisual Observatory for a Ministerial Conference on Broadcasting organised by the Irish Presidency of the European Union (Dublin & Drogheda 1–3 March 2004), http://www.obs.coe.int/online_publication/transfrontier_tv.pdf (last visited on 22 April 2004), 28.
12 Lange, A ‘Transfrontier Television in the European Union: Market Impact’ in ibid 6, 10. An example are RTL-4 and RTL-5 which are established in Luxembourg, but target the Netherlands.
13 Ibid. German private channels SAT.1, RTL, Pro7 and Kabel1 have Swiss and Austrian windows. SAT.1 has obtained a licence from the targeted countries.
14 Art. 2 (1) of Dir. 89/552/EEC, [1989] OJ L 298/23:
Each Member State shall ensure that all television broadcasts transmitted— by broadcasters under its jurisdiction, or—by broadcasters who, while not being under the jurisdiction of any Member State, make use of a frequency or a satellite capacity granted by, or a satellite up-link situated in, that Member State, comply with the law applicable to broadcasts intended for the public in that Member State.
15 Case C–222/94 Commission v United Kingdom [1996] ECR I–4025.
16 Ibid paras 35ff.
17 AG Lenz in Case C–222/94 Commission v United Kingdom [1996] ECR I–4025, para 68.
18 Case C–222/94, para 58.
19 Ibid para 60.
20 Drijber, BJ, above n 7, 97; see Harrison, J and Woods, L ‘Determining Jurisdiction in the Digital Age’ (1999) 5 European Public Law 583, 593Google Scholar.
21 Case C–222/94, paras 70ff.
22 10th recital to Dir 97/36/EC.
23 10th recital to Dir 97/36/EC.
24 Drijber, BJ, above n 7, 93.
25 In a case concerning the transmission of the RTL 4 and 5 services to the Dutch market the Commissariaat voor de Media (CvdM) concluded by decision of 5 February 2002 that the broadcaster Holand Media Group (HMG) was established in the Netherlands according to Art 2(3)(b). HMG’s head office was located in Luxembourg, but its editorial decisions were taken in the Netherlands and a major part of the company’s workforce was located there. The question whether HMG or the Luxembourg licensed satellite broadcaster CLT-Ufa is responsible for the two channels is in contention between the CvdM and the European Commission. See COM(2002)778 final Fourth Report on the application of Directive 89/552/EEC ‘Television without Frontiers’, 6 January 2003, 9.
26 Common position (EC) No 49/96 adopted by the Council on 8 July 1996 with a view to adopting Dir 96/… /EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Dir 89/552/EEC on the Coordination of Certain Provisions Laid Down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States Concerning the Pursuit of Television Broadcasting Activities, [1996] OJ C 264/52, recital 11.
27 Harrison, J and Woods, L above n 20, 597.
28 Lenz, CO ‘Das Sendestaatsprinzip als Teil der europäischen Medienordnung’ in Europäisches Medienrecht—Fernsehen und seine gemeinschaftsrechtliche Regelung, Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Europäisches Medienrecht Saarbrücken, Vol 18 (Munich, 1998), 21 Google Scholar; Pingel-Lenuzza, I ‘La nouvelle directive ‘Télévision sans frontières’ ou la lente structuration du droit communautaire de l’audiovisuel’ (1999) 2 Revue des affaires européennes 173, 176Google Scholar; Meyer-Heine, A ‘Les apports de la nouvelle directive ‘Télévision sans frontières’ du 30 juin 1997 entrée en vigueur le 31 décembre 1998’ (1999) 35 Revue trimestrielle de droit européen 95, 98Google Scholar.
29 Farrar, C ‘EC Broadcasting Law Clarified: The Paul Denuit and VT4 Cases and the New “Television Without Frontiers” Directive’ (1998) 1 Entertainment Law Review 16, 19Google Scholar.
30 From interviews at the Commission, DG Internal Market (MARKT) and DG Education and Culture (EAC) conducted for this study in March 2000.
31 Helberger, N ‘Die Konkretisierung des Sendestaatsprinzips in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH’ (1998) 1 Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht 50, 56Google Scholar.
32 Harrison, J and Woods, L, above n 20, 596.
33 Drijber, BJ, above n 7, 96. Note also the decision of the Dutch Council of State from 12 April 2001 which held that the commercial TV stations RTL4 and RTL5 fell under Luxembourg media law, not under the more restrictive Dutch media law. RTL’s production facilities were located in the Netherlands. However, its strategic and commercial decisions were made in Luxembourg.
34 Drijber, BJ, above n 7, 105.
35 Saxpekidou, E Eleutheri kykloforia tileoptikon ypiresion stin Europaïki Oikonomiki Koinotita (Thessaloniki, Ekdoseis Sakkoula, 1990) 149 Google Scholar.
36 See COM(95)86 final Report on application of Directive 89/552/EEC and Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC, 31 May 1995, 19.
37 AG Lenz in Case C–222/94 Commission v United Kingdom [1996] ECR-I 4025, para 74 n 49.
38 Case C–11/95 Commission v Belgium [1996] ECR I–4117, paras 15ff.
39 Council Directive 93/83/EEC on the Coordination of Certain Rules Concerning Copyright and Rights Related to Copyright Applicable to Satellite Broadcasting and Cable Retransmission, [1993] OJ L 248/15.
40 De Nanclares, JM-P Die Bedeutung des Gemeinschaftsrechts für das Fernsehen: Die Fernsehrichtlinie, Vorträge, Reden und Berichte aus dem Europa-Institut der Universität des Saarlandes, vol 253 (Saarbrücken, Europa-Institut der Universität des Saarlandes, 1991), 104 Google Scholar; Saxpekidou, E, above n 35, 127; Coulthard, A ‘Dutch Television—Too Red Hot for UK!’ (1993) 14 Media Law and Practice 116 Google Scholar referring to the opinion of Leggatt LJ in Red Hot Television.
41 Case C–11/95, above n 38, para 16.
42 Saxpekidou, E, above n 35, 126.
43 Case C–11/95 Commission v Belgium [1996] ECR I–4117.
44 Ibid paras 30ff; paras 87ff.
45 See also Case C–14/96 Criminal Proceedings against Paul Denuit [1997] ECR I–2785, paras 31ff where the European Court equally dismissed this argument.
Arts 4 and 5 stipulate that broadcasters have to reserve a majority proportion of their transmission time for European works and at least 10% of their transmission time or of their programming budget for independent works. Further: Katsirea, I ‘Why the European Broadcasting Quota Should be Abolished’ (2003) 2 ELR 190 Google Scholar.
46 AG Lenz in Case C–11/95, para 60.
47 Ibid para 86.
48 Drijber, BJ, above n 7, 99.
49 23th Recital to Dir 97/36/EC.
50 Joined Cases C–34/95, C–35/95 and C–36/95, Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Förlag AB and Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v TV-Shop I Sverige AB [1997] ECR I–3843.
51 Ibid, para 59.
52 Drijber, BJ, above n 7, 102.
53 Saxpekidou, E, above n 35, 157; Drijber, BJ, above n 7, 102.
54 Saxpekidou, E, above n 35, 160.
55 Harrison, J and Woods, L, above n 20, 591.
56 Ibid, 158; Drijber, BJ, above n 7, 103.
57 2nd Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee on the application of Dir. 89/552/EEC ‘Television Without Frontiers’, 24 October 1997, COM(97)523 final, para 4.2; Recital 18 to Council Recommendation 98/560/EC on the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services, 24 September 1998, [1998] OJ L 270/48; contra Woods, L and Scholes, J ‘Broadcasting: the Creation of a European Culture or the Limits of the Internal Market?’ (1997) 17 Yearbook of European Law 47, 80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
58 See the Joint Comment of ARD and ZDF on the Review of the Television Without Frontiers Directive, 14 July 2003, http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/regul/review-twf2003/contribution.htm (last visited on 19 February 2004): ‘In all probability these requirements can hardly be met in practice’.
59 Petersen, N Rundfunkfreiheit und EG-Vertrag. Die Einwirkungen des Europäischen Rechts auf die Ausgestaltung der nationalen Rundfunkordnungen (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1994), 101 Google Scholar; Seelmann-Eggebert, S Internationaler Rundfunkhandel: im Recht der World Trade Organisation und der Europäischen Gemeinschaft (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1998), 216 Google Scholar; Steindorff, E Grenzen der EG-Kompetenzen (Heidelberg, Verlag Recht und Wirtschaft, 1990), 101 Google Scholar; Gulich, J Rechtsfragen grenzüberschreitender Rundfunksendungen. Die deutsche Rundfunkordnung im Konflikt mit der Dienstleistungsfreiheit (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1990), 86 Google Scholar; Lenz, CO, above n 28, 26; Kugelmann, D Der Rundfunk und die Dienstleistungsfreiheit des EWG-Vertrages (Berlin, Duncker und Humblot, 1991), 51, 43Google Scholar; see Kühn, M ‘Harmonisierung des Rundfunkrechts in Europa. Zum Entwurf der Richtlinie der EG-Kommission’ (1986) 11 Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht 585fGoogle Scholar.
60 Kugelmann, D above n 59, 43.
61 Niedobitek, M above n 8, 163.
62 Steindorff, E above n 59, 101.
63 Ibid.
64 Case 279/80 Webb [1981] ECR 3305; [1982] 1 CMLR 406; Case 205/84 Commission v Germany [1986] ECR 3755; [1987] 2 CMLR 69.
65 Steindorff, E, above n 59, 102.
66 Ibid 99; contra, AG Jacobs in De Agostini, para 77.
67 See Case C–233/94 Germany v European Parliament and Council [1997] ECR I–2405, para 64, noted at (1998) 35 CML Rev 459; Drijber, BJ, above n 7, 87 n 2.
68 AG Lenz in Case C–222/94 Commission v United Kingdom [1996] ECR I–4025, para 38.
69 Case C–11/95 Commission v Belgium [1996] ECR I–4117.
70 Joined Cases C–34/95, C–35/95 and C–36/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Förlag AB and Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v TV-Shop I Sverige AB [1997] ECR I–3843.
71 Case C–288/89 Stichting Collectieve Antennevorzienning Gouda and Others [1991]ECR I–4007.
72 Case C–353/89 Commission v Netherlands [1991] ECR I–4069.
73 Case C–11/95 Commission v Belgium [1996] ECR I–4117, para 55.
74 AG Jacobs in Joined Cases C–34/95, C–35/95 and C–36/95, para 58.
75 Bullinger, M ‘Werbung und Quotenregelung zwischen nationalem und europäischem Rundfunkrecht’ in Stern, K et al. Eine Rundfunkordnung für Europa—Chancen und Risiken, Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Rundfunkrecht an der Universität zu Köln, vol 54 (Munich, CH Beck, 1990), 85, 91fGoogle Scholar; Müller, M ‘Die Revision der EG-Fernsehrichtlinie—EMR-Dialog am 2.12.1993 in Mainz in Zusammenarbeit mit SAT.1’ (1994) 1 Archiv für Presserecht 26, 29Google Scholar.
76 AG Lenz in Case C–11/95, para 63.
77 Ibid, para 91.
78 Ibid, para 100.
79 Hoffmann-Riem, W ‘Defending Vulnerable Values: Regulatory Measures and Enforcement Dilemmas’ in Blumler, JG (ed) Television and the Public Interest. Vulnerable Values in West European Broadcasting (London, Sage, 1992), 173, 190Google Scholar.
80 Contra AG Lenz in Case C–11/95, para 101. See, however, para 104 of the same opinion, where AG Lenz left the option open that, in the case of flagrant offences against public policy, public security or good morals a Member State might be entitled to take action against broadcasts from other Member States.
81 Pullen, M and Ris, B ‘Television Without Frontiers: The Saga Continues’ (1997) 1 Entertainment Law Review 3 Google Scholar.
82 Knothe, M and Bashayan, H ‘Die Revision der EG-Fernsehrichtlinie. Ein europäischer Entscheidungsprozeß im Lichte nationaler Kompetenzen’ (1997) 6 Archiv für Presserecht 849 Google Scholar.
83 Joined Cases C–34/95, C–35/95 and C–36/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Förlag AB and Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v TV-Shop I Sverige AB [1997] ECR I–3843.
84 Drijber, BJ, above n 7, 99.
85 AG Jacobs in Joined Cases C–34/95, C–35/95 and C–36/95, paras 79ff.
86 Joined Cases C–34/95, C–35/95 and C–36/95, paras 33f.
87 Ibid, para 34.
88 Ibid, para 38.
89 Drijber, BJ, above n 7, 100.
90 AG Jacobs, paras 35ff.
91 Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 Relating to the Approximation of the Laws, Regulations and Administrative Provisions of the Member States Concerning Misleading Advertising, [1984] OJ L 250/17.
92 Joined Cases E–8/94 and E–9/94 Forbrukerombudet v Mattel Scandinavia and Lego Norge, Judgment of 16 June 1995; Joined Cases C–34/95, C–35/95 and C–36/95 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v De Agostini (Svenska) Förlag AB and Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) v TV-Shop I Sverige AB [1997] ECR I–3843, noted at (1997) 34 CML Rev 1445, 1449.
93 Criscuolo, A ‘The ‘TV Without Frontiers’ Directive and the Legal Regulation of Publicity in the European Community’ (1998) 23 ELR 357, 363Google Scholar.
94 See p 121 above.
95 See 27th recital to Dir. 89/552.
96 See 13th recital to Dir. 89/552.
97 AG Jacobs, para 80.
98 Drijber, BJ, above n 7, 101.
99 Case C–412/93 Société d’Importation Édouard Leclerc-Siplec v TF1 Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA [1995] ECR I–179.
100 Dommering, EJ ‘Advertising and Sponsorship Law—Problems of Regulating Partly Liberalised Markets’ in Europäisches Medienrecht—Fernsehen und seine gemeinschaftsrechtliche Regelung, Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Europäisches Medienrecht Saarbrücken, vol 18 (Munich, Jehle-Rehm, 1998), 49 Google Scholar.
101 AG Jacobs, para 84.
102 Lüth Case (1958) 7 BVerfG 198, 209.
103 Kommers, DP The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany, 2nd edn (Durham, NC, Duke University Press, 1997) 365 Google Scholar.
104 The last arrow in the reception states’ quiver is circumvention that can be pleaded by Member States whose legislation has been evaded by broadcasting organisations directing most of their programmes to their territory, while being established in different Member States. Uncertainty reigns as to the conditions that have to be satisfied for the substantiation of abuse of Community law. See the case law of the Court in Case 33/74 Van Binsbergen v Bedrijfsvereniging Metaalnijverheid [1974] ECR 1299; Case C–211/91 Commission v Belgium [1992] ECR I–6757; Case C–148/91 Vereniging Veronica Omroep Organisatie v Commissariaat voor de Media [1993] ECR I–487; Case C–23/93 TV 10 SA v Commissariaat voor de Media [1994] ECR I–4795; Case C–11/95 Commission v Belgium [1996] ECR I–4117; Case C–56/96 VT4 v Vlaamse Gemeenschap [1997] ECR I–3143; Case C–212/96 Centros Ltd. v Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen [1999] ECR I–1459 and the commentary by Huglo, JG ‘Droit d’ établissement et libre prestation des services’ (1992) 28 Revue trimestrielle du droit européen 687 Google Scholar; Sevinga, K ‘Dutch Broadcasting Continued’ (1993) 4 Utilities Law Review 137 Google Scholar; Farrar, C above n 29, 16; Hatzopoulos, V ‘Recent Developments of the Case Law of the ECJ in the Field of Services’ (2000) 37 CML Rev 43 Google Scholar.
105 Communication from the Commission on the Future of European Regulatory Audiovisual Policy, 15 December 2003 COM(2003)784 final.
106 Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998 on the Development of the European Audiovisual and Information Services Industry by Promoting National Frameworks Aimed at Achieving a Comparable and Effective Level of Protection of Minors and Human Dignity [1998] OJ L 270/48.
107 See n 30 above. The Commission closed the infringement proceedings initiated against the Netherlands subsequent to a ruling passed by the Dutch Council of State.
108 See p 108 above.
109 EU Presidency 2004 Website, http://www.ue2004.ie (last visited on 22 March 2004).
110 Dyson, K and Humphreys, P ‘Regulatory Change in Western Europe: From National Cultural Regulation to International Economic Stratecraft’ in Dyson, K and Humphreys, P Broadcasting and New Media Policies in Western Europe: A Comparative Study of Technological Change and Public Policy (London, Routledge, 1988), 96 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Blumler, JG ‘Public Service Broadcasting before the Commercial Deluge’ in Blumler, JG (ed) Television and the Public Interest. Vulnerable Values in West European Broadcasting (London, Sage, 1992), 7fGoogle Scholar.
111 Dyson, K and Humphreys, P above n 110, 95–6; Barendt, E above n 9, 4.
112 Ibid.
113 Humphreys, above n 1, 161.
114 Hoffmann-Riem, W above n 9, 283.
115 Ibid 341; Hoffmann-Riem, W ‘Trends in the Development of Broadcasting Law in Western Europe’ (1992) European Journal of Communication 147, 153.
116 Hoffmann-Riem, W, above n 9, 340, 345.
117 Ibid 346, 361.
118 Seidel, M, above n 6, 127, 139.
119 The impossibility of the isolation of national media systems has been insightfully captured by the German Constitutional Court in its Fourth Television Case, 73 BVerfGE 118 (1986).
120 Seidel, M, above n 6, 138.
121 Barendt, E, above n 9, 110.
122 Case 155/73 Guiseppe Sacchi [1974] ECR 409; [1974] 2 CMLR 177.
123 Case 52/79 Procureur du Roi v Marc JVC Debauve and others [1980] ECR–I 833.
124 Reich, N ‘Rundfunkrecht und Wettbewerbsrecht vor dem Forum des europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts’ in Hoffmann-Riem, W Rundfunk im Wettbewerbsrecht. Der öffentlich rechtliche Rundfunk im Spannungsfeld zwischen Wirtschaftsrecht und Rundfunkrecht, Symposien des Hans-Bredow-Instituts, vol 10 (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1988), 227 Google Scholar; Berg, K ‘Rechtsprobleme des grenzüberschreitenden Fernsehens—Stellungnahme zum Grünbuch der EG-Kommission aus der Sicht der öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten’ in Schwarze, J (ed) Fernsehen ohne Grenzen. Die Errichtung des Gemeinsamen Marktes für den Rundfunk, insbesondere über Satellit und Kabel (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1985), 200 Google Scholar.