Football ≠ money - CJEU judgment in Case C-283/11 Sky Österreich v Österreichischer Rundfunk

This week, the CJEU handed down its preliminary ruling in the Sky Österreich case, concerning the question whether Sky had to grant the Austrian public broadcasting service the right to transmit short news reports on Europa League matches involving Austrian teams, without receiving any compensation in return. In line with A-G Bot's opinion (on which we reported in an earlier post on this blog), the Court held that:

'Consideration of the question raised has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 15(6) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive).'

In other words, Sky's rights under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights do not preclude the compensation which holders of exclusive broadcasting rights may seek from other channels for short news reports from being limited to technical costs.

As regards the right to protection of property, the Court is of the opinion that Sky cannot rely on this right in the present case. Although exclusive contractual broadcasting rights have asset value, 'when Sky acquired those rights by means of a contract (in August 2009), EU law already provided for the right to make short news reports, while limiting the amount of compensation to the additional costs directly incurred in providing access to the signal'.

Following its earlier case law, furthermore, the Court holds that the freedom to conduct a business, on which Sky sought to rely, 'is not absolute, but must be viewed in relation to its social function' (referring to Joined Cases C‑184/02 and C‑223/02 Spain and Finland v Parliament and Council [2004] ECR I‑7789, paragraphs 51 and 52, and Case C‑544/10 Deutsches Weintor [2012] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 54). In the present case, restrictions on the freedom to conduct a business are justified in light of the public interest, in particular the fundamental freedom to receive information and the promotion of media pluralism. According to the Court, the contested legislation strikes a fair balance between the rights and freedoms at issue.

See the CJEU's press release for a summary of the judgment.

CARRP - not a fish, but: a credit agreement relating to residential property

As we are all waiting for the European institutions to come back from their holiday and pick up where they left unresolved consumer law matters, certain problems will have to wait longer than others. In September there was supposed to be a vote in the European Parliament on the European directive on credit agreements relating to residential property (CARRP), but the news agencies inform that the vote was delayed until December 10. (Vote on European mortgage regulation delayed for three months) The proposal for this Directive was issued by the European Commission in March of 2011. (Mortgages: better protection for European consumers) In the coming months the European institutions will have more time, therefore, to discuss the provisions of this draft Directive.

If you have not yet heard of the CARRP and its goals, you should know that the CARRP is supposed to regulate more strictly advertising of mortgage credit, making sure that consumers do not get false expectations regarding the cost of the credit or its availability. Moreover, it would strengthen the supervision and regulation over institutions issuing mortgage credit as well as credit intermediaries. Another goal of the CARRP is to improve the information that is being given to consumers on mortgage credits (e.g., by creating a credit database), as well as to personalise it (through a European Standardised Information Sheet - ESIS). Consumers should also benefit from a harmonised annual percentage rate of charge. 

Last month the European Banking Industry Committee (EBIC) gave its opinion on the draft. One of its criticism is that the draft suggests that the Directive shall not apply to credit agreements in the form of overdraft facilities only where the consumer agrees to be exempted from the provisions of the Directive. However, the already binding Consumer Credit Directive gives mandatory consumer protection in cases of overdraft facilities, which pursuant to EBIC should lead to the exclusion of such credit agreements from the scope of application of the CARRP as a rule. One of the positively assessed elements of the CARRP is the introduction of more (and more clear) rules on what explanations should be given by lenders to consumers.