This page intentionally left blank
EUROPEAN BROADCASTING
LAW AND POLICY
European broadcasting policy has attracted attention from many disci-
plines because it has dual nature: cultural and commercial. This book offers
adetailed treatment of European broadcasting law, set against an overview
of policy in this area. In this respect the authors identify tensions within
the EU polity as regards the appropriate level, purpose and mechanism
of broadcast regulation. Key influences are problems of competence, the
impact of changing technology and the consequences of increasing com-
mercialisation. Furthermore, the focus of the analysis is on the practical
implications of the legal framework on viewers, and the authors distin-
guish both between citizen and consumer and between the passive and
active viewer. The underlying question is the extent to which those most
in need of protection by regulation, given the purpose of broadcasting, are
adequately protected.
jackie harrison is Professor of Public Communication at the Uni-
versity ofSheffield. Her three principal research interests are the study of
news; European communication, information and audio-visual policy and
regulation; and public service broadcasting and communication. She is an
established author, and has undertaken many funded research projects for
the television industry.
lorna woods is Professor in Law at the University of Essex. She is known
for her work in the fields of EC law and, particularly, media regulation and
freedom of expression. She is co-author of a best-selling textbook in the
field of EU law and has written a monograph on the free movement of
goods and services.

EUROPEAN BROADCASTING
LAW AND POLICY

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
hardback
paperback
paperback
eBook (EBL)
eBook (EBL)
hardback
CONTENTS
Series Editors’ Preface page vii
Preface ix
Case list xi
part i
1Introduction 3
2The value and functions of the broadcast media: protecting
the citizen viewer 18
3Regulation and the viewer in a changing broadcasting
environment 41
4Union competence 62
5European broadcasting policy 87
part ii
6Access 115
7Media ownership: impact on access and content 146
8Jurisdiction, forum shopping and the ‘race to the
bottom’ 173
9Advertising placement and frequency: balancing the needs
of viewers and commercial interests 194
10 Negative content regulation 218
11 Positive content regulation: quotas 243
12 Privatisation of sport and listed events 266

have shaped broadcasting policy in the EU context over the past thirty
years, and highlighting the differing provisions of EU law which apply to
different aspects of broadcasting policy in the context of a single market,
including the regulation of ownership, content and delivery. Part II looks
in more detail at some specific questions such as ownership, the broad-
casting of sport and advertising, which touch upon some of the most
controversial issues facing regulators at the present time. In their analysis,
the authors seek to reflect the difficulty of combining both an economic
viewpoint and a cultural viewpoint in relation to the social, political and
economic centrality of broadcasting. As they note, this is complicated by
vii
viii series editors’ preface
the factors which shape an EU-level response in the area of broadcasting
such as the complex and incomplete nature of the EU’s competences in
the field, as well as the problems of regulating such a swiftly changing
technological domain.
The authors argue that broadcasting is best understood as something
which can contribute to social, political and cultural purposes. They find
that current broadcasting regulation at EU level takes a multi-faceted
approach to the role of broadcasting in relation to these purposes. Regard-
ing viewers as citizens requires a different nature of regulatory thinking
than does regarding them as consumers in a market-place. The citizen’s
domain is characterised by universal availability (even if in practice not all
citizens take up what is on offer), whereas in the consumer domain pri-
vate interest considerations of ownership and access dominate: the ability
and willingness to pay is crucial. The authors perceive a shift in Euro-
pean broadcasting towards commercial overstatement and public service
understatement, and they call for attention to be paid not merely to the
creation of European champions capable of competing globally, but also
to diversity of suppliers and content.

Before the European Courts:
Alphabetical
Adoui and Cornaille,115-6/81 [1982] ECR 1665
Alpine Investments BV v. Minister van Financien, C-384/93, [1995] ECR
I-1141
AltmarkTrans GmbH v. Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH,C-280/00,
[2003] nyr, judgment 24 July 2003
Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Simmenthal SpA (Simmenthal
II), 106/77, [1978] ECR 629
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Rundfunkanstalten (ARD) v. PRO Sieben Media AG,
C-6/98, [1999] ECR I-7599
Binon,243/83, [1985] ECR 2015
Bond van Adverteerders v. Netherlands, 352/85,[1988] ECR 2085
Bosman,seeURBSA v. Bosman
Bouchereau,30/77, [1977] ECR 1999
Carpenter v. Secretary of State for the Home Dept., C-60/00, [2002] ECR
I-6279
Cassati,203/80, [1981] ECR 2595
Centros v. Erhvervs-og Selskabsstyrelsen, C-212/97 [1999] ECR I-1459
Comit´eCentrald’Entreprise de la Soci´et´eAnonyme Vittel v. Commission,
T-12/93, [1995] ECR II-1247
Commission v. Belgium, C-11/95, [1996] ECR I-4115
Commission v. Belgium (Cable Access), C-211/91, [1992] ECR I-6756
Commission v. Council (Titanium Dioxide Case), C-300/89, [1991] ECR
I-2867
Commission v. Italy,173/73, [1974] ECR 709
Commission v. Netherlands (Mediawet), C-353/89, [1991] ECR I-4069
Commission v. UK, C-222/94, [1996] ECR I-4025
Corbeau, C-320/91, [1993] ECR I-2533
xi

9/94, Report of the EFTA Court 1 January 1994–30 June 1995, p. 115
Garcia Avello,C-148/02, [2003] nyr, judgment 2 October 2003
Germany v. Parliament and Council (Tobacco Advertising Directive),
C-376/98, [2000] ECR I-8419
Grzelczyck, C-184/99, [2001] ECR I-6193
Gut Springenheide and Rudolf Tusky v. Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Stein-
furt-Amt f¨ur Lebensmittel¨uberwachung, C-210/96, [1998] ECR-4657
Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v. Commission,85/76, [1976] ECR 461
IMS Health GmbH & Co KG v. NDC Health GmbH & Co KG,C-418/01,
[2004] nyr, judgment 29 April 2004
case list xiii
Infront WM AG v. Commission, T-33/01, [2005] nyr, judgment 15
December 2005
JHM Van Binsbergen v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereiging voor de Metaal-
nijverheid,33/74, [1974] ECR 1299
Konsumerntombudsmannen v. De Agostini (Svenska) Forlag AB and
Konsumerntombudsmannen v. TV-shopiSverigeAB,C-34–6/95, [1997]
ECR I-3843
M6 et al. v. Commission, T-112/99, [2001] ECR II-2459
Mediakabel BV v. Commissariaat voor de Media, C-89/04, [2005] nyr,
judgment 2 June 2005
M´etropole T´el´evision SA (M6), Antena 3 de Televisi´on, SA, Gestevisi´on
Telecinco, SA and SIC – Sociedade Independente de Comunica¸c˜ao, SA v.
Commission,T-185, 216, 299–300/00, [2002] ECR II-3805
Metropole T´el´evision SA and Reti Televisive Italiane SpA and Gestevisi´on
Telecinco SA and Antena 3 de Televisi´on v. Commission, T-528, 542, 543
and 546/93, [1996] ECR II-649
Microsoft v. Commission, T-201/04, Not yet decided
Microsoft v. Commission, T-313/05, Not yet decided
Netherlands v. Parliament and Council (Biotechnological Inventions

The Queen (on the application of Bidar)v.London Borough of Ealing, Sec-
retary of State for Education and Skills, C-209/03, [2005] nyr, judgment
15 March 2005
TV10 SA v. Commissariaat voor de Media, C-23/93, [1994] ECR I-4795
United Brands Co and United Brands Continental BV v. Commission,27/76,
[1978] ECR 207
URBSA v. Bosman, C-415/93, [1995] ECR I4921
Van Duyn,41/74, [1974] ECR 1337
Vereniging Veronica Omroep Organisatie v. Commissariaat voor de Media,
C-148/91, [1993] ECR I-487
Vlaams Gewest v. Commission, T-214/95, [1997] ECR II-717
VT4 Limited v. Vlaamse Gemeenschap, C-56/96, [1997] ECR I-3843
Wachauf v. Germany,5/88, [1989] ECR 2609
Walrave and Koch,36/74, [1974] ECR 140
Wouters v. NoVA, C-309/99, [2002] ECR I-1577
Numerical
26/62, NV Algemene Transport- en expeditie Onderneming Van Gend en
Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen,[1963] ECR 1
56 & 58/64, Etablissements Consten SA & Grundig-Verkaufs-GmbH v.
Commission, [1966] ECR 299
6/72, Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Co. Inc.v.
Commission, [1973] ECR 215
155/73, Sacchi, [1974] ECR 409
173/73, Commission v. Italy,[1974] ECR 709
33/74, JHM Van Binsbergen v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereiging voor de
Metaalnijverheid,[1974] ECR 1299
36/74, Walrave and Koch, [1974] ECR 140
41/74, Van Duyn,[1974]ECR 1337
36/75, Rutili v. Ministre de l’int´erieur, [1975] ECR 1219
case list xv

C-17/92, Distribuidores Cinematogr´aficos,[1993] ECR I-2239
T-12/93, Comit´eCentrald’Entreprise de la Soci´et´eAnonyme Vittel v. Com-
mission,[1995]ECRII-1247
C-23/93, TV 10 SA v. Commissariaat voor de Media,[1994] ECR I-4795
C-384/93, Alpine Investments BV v. Minister van Financi¨en, [1995] ECR
I-1141
C-415/93, URBSA v. Bosman, [1995] ECR I4921
T-528, 542, 543 and 546/93, Metropole t´el´evision SA and Reti Televisive
Italiane SpA and Gestevisi´on Telecinco SA and Antena 3 de Televisi´on v.
Commission,[1996] ECR II-649
xvi case list
E-8 & 9/94, Forbrukerombudet v. Mattel Scandinavia A/S and Lego Norge
A/S,ReportoftheEFTACourt 1 January 1994–30 June 1995, p. 115
C-222/94, Commission v. UK, [1996] ECR I-4025
C-320, 328, 329, 337-9/94, RTL and Others v. Ministero delle Poste e Tele-
comunicazioni,[1996]ECR I-6471
C-11/95, Commission v. Belgium, [1996] ECR I-4115
C–34-6/95, Konsumerntombudsmannen v. De Agostini (Svenska) Forlag AB
and Konsumerntombudsmannen v. TV-shop i Sverige AB, [1997] ECR
I-3843
T-106/95, FFSA,[1997] ECR II-229
T-221/95, Endemol v. Commission,[1999] ECR II-1299
T-214/95, Vlaams Gewest v. Commission, [1997] ECR II-717
C-14/96, Criminal Proceedings against Paul Denuit,[1997] ECR I-2785
C-51/96, Christelle Deli`ege v. Ligue Francophone de Judo et Disciplines
Associ´ees ASBL et al., [2001] ECR I-2549
C-56/96, VT4 Limited v. Vlaamse Gemeenschap, [1997] ECR I-3843
E-8/97, Sverige 1000 AB v. Norwegian Government, [1998] 3 CMLR 318
C-210/96, Gut Springenheide and Rudolf Tusky v. Oberkreisdirektor des
KreisesSteinfurt-Amt f¨ur Lebensmittel¨uberwachung, [1998] ECR -4657

visi´on, SA, Gestevisi´on Telecinco, SA and SIC – Sociedade Independente
de Comunica¸c˜ao, SA v. Commission, [2002] ECR II-3805
C-280/00, AltmarkTrans GmbH v. Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH,
[2003] nyr, judgment 24 July 2003
T-33/01, Infront WM AG v. Commission,[2005] nyr, judgment 15 Decem-
ber 2005
C-42/01, Portuguese Republic v. Commission,[2004]nyr,judgment22
June 2004
C-245/01, RTL v. Nieders¨achsische Landesmedienanstalt f¨ur privaten Rund-
funk,[2003]nyr,judgment 23 October 2003
C-418/01, IMS Health GmbH & Co KG v. NDC Health GmbH & Co KG,
[2004] nyr, judgment 29 April 2004
C-491/01, R.v.Secretary of State for Health,exparteBritish American
Tobacco,etal.,[2002] ECR I-11453
C-36/02, Omega Spielhallen – und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v.
Oberb¨urgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn, [2004] nyr, judgment 14
October 2004
C-148/02, Garcia Avello,[2003]nyr,judgment2October2003
C-209/03, The Queen (on the application of Bidar) v. London Borough of
Ealing, Secretary of State for Education and Skills,[2005]nyr,judgment
15 March 2005
C-89/04, Mediakabel BV v. Commissariaat voor de Media, [2005] nyr,
judgment 2 June 2005
T-201/04, Microsoft v. Commission,Notyetdecided
T-313/05, Microsoft v. Commission,Notyetdecided
European Court of Human Rights
Casado Coca v. Spain (A/285), judgment 24 February 1994, (1994) 18
EHRR 1
VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland (24699/94), judgment 28
June 2001, (2002) 34 EHRR 4

Denmark/TV2 Commission Decision, C2/2003 (ex NN 22/02) C(2004)
1814, final.
Deutsche Telecom/BetaResearch Commission Decision, OJ [1999] L 53/3.
EBU Eurovision,Commission Case IV/32.150 OJ [2000] L 151/18.
English Football Premier League (FAPL) Commission Decision, COMP/
38.173 and 38.453 C(2006)868 final.
English Football Premier League (FAPL) Commission Decision, COMP/
38.173 and 38.453 Article 19(3), OJ [2004] C 115/02.
case list xix
Eurofix-Bauco,Commission Decision, OJ [1988] L 65/19.
Football World Cup Commission Decision, IV/36.888, OJ [2000] L 5/55.
France/SPF Commission Decision, C(2002) 2593 final, N 797/2001 OJ
[2003] C 71/3.
French international news channel Commission Decision, N 54/2005 OJ
[2005] C 256/25.
Funding for RTP Commission Decision, NN 31/2006 OJ [2006] C 222/4.
General Electric/Honeywell Commission Decision, COMP/M.2220.
Kinderkanal and Phoenix Commission Decision, NN 70/98 OJ [1999] C
238/03.
Microsoft Commission Decision, COMP/C-3/37.792, Commission Deci-
sion, C(2004) 900 final.
MSG Media Service Commission Decision, 94/922/EC, Case IV/M.469 OJ
[1994] L 364/1.
NC/Canal Plus/CDPQ/Bank America Commission Decision, Case IV/
M.1327, OJ [1999] C 233/21.
NewsCorp/Telepiu Commission Decision, COMP/M.2876 2 April 2003.
Ad hoc measures to Dutch public broadcasters and NOS and NOB,Com-
mission Decision C2/04 (ex NN 170/03) OJ [2004] C 61/8.
Nordic Satellite Distribution Commission Decision, 96/177/EC, Case
IV/M.490 OJ [1996] L 53/20.

108.
Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the co-ordination of certain provisions
laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States
concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, OJ [1989]
L298/23, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC OJ [1997] L 202/30.
Council Directive 90/387/EEC on the establishment of the internal market
for telecommunications services through the implementation of open
network provision, OJ [1990] L 192/1.
Decisions
Decision 276/1999 on the Safer Internet Action Plan OJ [1999] L 33/1
Decision 1151/2003 amending Decision 276/1999 OJ [2003] L 462/1
National Legislation
Communications Act 2003 (c. 21) (London: HMSO, 2003).
PART I

1
Introduction
The broadcasting sector in the European Union (the Union) is in a state
of flux. Rapid technological development and increasing commercialisa-
tion have provided new challenges for regulators and policymakers, who
seek to harness the potential of new technology to provide a regulatory
environment that is for the good of everyone. Despite extensive consulta-
tion and reviews of the regulatory framework in the Union over the last
decade or so, a failure to consider directly the broadcasting environment
from the perspective of all viewers has created a regulatory framework in
which a full range of broadcasting services is not universally provided. The
underlying assumption of policymakers is that, in a properly function-
ing broadcasting environment, industry will thrive economically, develop
new technology and new services and consequently cater for all viewers.
The expectation is that the resulting environment will also create greater

those based on economic concerns.
The Union’s policy initiatives towards broadcasting were, and still are,
regarded as a means to encourage and foster, depending on your point of
view, national identity, a common Union cultural heritage or commercial
freedom for a valuable Union-based market. National broadcasters were
expected to reflect their respective national cultural heritages. Citizens
were able toshareinaminimal but ‘commonknowledge’.
2
The assumption
that broadcasting has an impact, however ill-defined and insubstantial,
forms the basis for the view that broadcasting should serve social, cultural
and political purposes, beyond commercial objectives.
3
Parallel to these
non-economic concerns was the issue of the evolving commercial identity
of broadcasting, notably the introduction and expansion of the private
sector, which began to coexist with public broadcasters. Of course, the
philosophy of the two sectors is different. Private sector broadcasters do
not necessarily have the public good as their primary purpose, whilst pub-
lic sector broadcasters are often subject to public interest obligations. We
will show how this bifurcated world constantly re-emerges in all aspects
of Union broadcasting policy. Given the distinctions between the two
types ofbroadcasting, and their respective interests, we are faced with
the following problems: to what extent can we realistically expect private
sector broadcasters to produce programming that serves non-economic
purposes, therefore fulfilling the function of a public service broadcaster?
Conversely, to what extent can we expect and do we want to expect public
service broadcasters to provide commercial services? The answers to these
questions need to be considered in the context of a highly competitive
2