CONDITIONAL ACCES DIRECTIVE
“illicit device” does not cover foreign decoding devices which have been falsely obtained
• that ‘illicit device’ within the meaning of Article 2(e) of the Conditional Access Directive must be in-terpreted as not covering foreign decoding devices, foreign decoding devices procured or enabled by the provision of a false name and address or foreign decoding devices which have been used in breach of a contractual limitation permitting their use only for private purposes.
Prevention of use of falsely obtained foreign decoding devices permitted under directive
• that Article 3(2) of the Conditional Access Di-rective does not preclude national legislation which prevents the use of foreign decoding devices, includ-ing those procured or enabled by the provision of a false name and address or those used in breach of a contractual limitation permitting their use only for private purposes, since such legislation does not fall within the field coordinated by that directive.
FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES
Ban on import or use of foreign decoding devices not permitted also in case of falsely obtained devices for commercial purposes
• that, on a proper construction of Article 56 TFEU, that article precludes legislation of a Mem-ber State which makes it unlawful to import into and sell and use in that State foreign decoding de-vices which give access to an encrypted satellite broadcasting service from another Member State that includes subject-matter protected by the legis-lation of that first State.
• that the conclusion set out in paragraph 125 of the present judgment is affected neither by the fact that the foreign decoding device has been procured or enabled by the giving of a false identity and a false address, with the intention of circumventing the territorial restriction in question, nor by the fact that it is used for commercial purposes although it was restricted to private use.
Reproduction right extends to transient fragments
• that Article 2(a) of the Copyright Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the reproduc-tion right extends to transient fragments of the works within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen, provided that those fragments contain elements which are the expression of the authors’ own intellectual creation, and the unit composed of the fragments reproduced simultane-ously must be examined in order to determine whether it contains such elements.
Acts of reproduction within the memory of a satel-lite decoder and television screen permitted
• Consequently, the answer to the question re-ferred is that acts of reproduction such as those at issue in Case C-403/08, which are performed within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen, fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of the Copyright Directive and may therefore be carried out without the authorisation of the copy-right holders concerned.
Communication to the public: transmission to cus-tomers present in a public house
• In light of all the foregoing, the answer to the question referred is that ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive must be interpreted as covering transmission of the broadcast works, via a television screen and speakers, to the customers present in a public house.
Satellite Broadcasting Directive does not cover acts of reproduction in satellite decoder
• that the Satellite Broadcasting Directive must be interpreted as not having a bearing on the law-fulness of the acts of reproduction performed within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen.
Obligation not to supply decoding devices outside licensed territory not permitted
• In light of the foregoing, the answer to the ques-tions referred is that the clauses of an exclusive li-cence agreement concluded between a holder of in-tellectual property rights and a broadcaster consti-tute a restriction on competition prohibited by Arti-cle 101 TFEU where they oblige the broadcaster not to supply decoding devices enabling access to that right holder’s protected subjectmatter with a view to their use outside the territory covered by that licence agreement.
National intellectual property protection of sporting events permitted
• Accordingly, it is permissible for a Member State to protect sporting events, where appropriate by virtue of protection of intellectual property, by putting in place specific national legislation, or by recognising, in compliance with European Union law, protection conferred upon those events by agreements concluded between the persons having the right to make the audiovisual content of the events available to the public and the persons who wish to broadcast that content to the public of their choice.