Premier League Association Case Study

Case note joined cases C-403/08 and C-249/08 Premier League Association

Kaylee Meijer 4086600
Eva Kok 4098986

Seminar group 13
T. M. L. Pham
Words: 1016 Joined cases C-403/08 and C-249/08 Premier League Association
Case C-403/08 concerns a civil action brought by ‘FAPL’. The action was brought against public houses which have shown matches of the Premier League, using Greek decoder cards, and against the organizations who supplied these cards. In case C-249/08 Ms. Murphy, manager of a public house, procured a NOVA decoder card to screen Premier League matches. Ms. Murphy was brought before the Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court, which convicted her on the ground that she had dishonestly received

For example, Alpine Investments. In this case the article of importance was also article 56 TFEU. As for the application of article 56 TFEU there must be an economic activity, a cross-border element and the activity must be temporary. The Court decided that rules of a Member State which prohibit providers of services established in its territory from making calls to potential clients in other Member States in order to offer their services, constitute a restriction on freedom to provide services within the meaning of article 56 TFEU. In other words, in this case there is a restriction to enter the market, because this legislation deprives operators from rapid and direct marketing and from contacting potential clients in other Member States. In the cases C-403/08 and C-429/08 Premier League Association (FAPL) there was also a market

None the less in these cases it concerns live-registrations of matches, and not the matches themselves. The Court refers to a required similar protection at national level. The remuneration model of the United Kingdom works out fine: the number of actual viewers can precisely be determined. On this number of viewers the remuneration model can be well based. But the compensation the organization asked is disproportional, because the organization strives after maximum profit. This goes against the fundamental purpose of the Convention to complete the internal market. The Court doesn’t follow the result of the Coditel-case. The restriction of the freedom to provide and receive services can in this case not be justified by an appeal to the protection of intellectual property. The conclusion of the Court is as expected. This case concerns the freedom to provide and receive services, the legislation of the Member States should protect the live-registration or the sport events themselves. The Court is aware of the aims of the Treaty. The outcome of this case has more effect on the copyright and competition