EU governments give evidence in Murphy satellite case

Legal representatives from governments across Europe were among those to give evidence to a panel of 13 judges in Luxembourg today as part of the on-going landmark case involving foreign satellite football.

From what started out as an appeal by Portsmouth licensee Karen Murphy has mushroomed into a case of European-wide significance.

The Publican ​was there to see the UK, Czech Republic, Spanish and Italian governments all state their arguments, during proceedings at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) this morning.

However, the case will drag on until next year. The ECJ's advocate general will give an opinion on January 13. The court will then present its judgement, expected three or four months later. This will be sent to the UK's High Court, which will sit again to make a final ruling.

The case, which was referred to the ECJ by the UK's High Court in 2008, is looking at whether the EU law on the free movement of goods should be applied to decoder cards, used by pubs to access Premier League football.

The UK's advocate called for a "careful balance to be struck between rights-holders, service providers and consumers".

She argued the European Commission, which submitted a report on the case, had "misunderstood" legislation around section 297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.

"The fact is 297 is to prevent fraud and nothing to do with territorial fragmentation, and does not seek to protect the interests of the FAPL (FA Premier League)," she told the court.

The Spanish government agreed that upholding the appeal would amount to "legalising fraudulent practice."

But an advocate for the European Commission argued the problem was that content, apart from Premier League football, was not available to viewers outside of the country where a decoder card originates. "Here you have a wide variety of coverage that is blocked," he said. "This seems like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut."
'Ramifications'

Earlier, James Mellor, representing the FA Premier League, argued the case was about "obtaining cards by deception", as false names and addresses were used to obtain them.

If Murphy's appeal was upheld he said it would have "serious ramifications for all broadcasters". He also said programme rights would be sold on a pan-European basis, instead of to individual countries. "This would lead to a distorted market and be detrimental to the consumer," he said.

On the issue of the closed period, which prevents pubs showing games at 3pm on a Saturday, a representative for Media Protection Services said it would damage football "as a whole", if it was not there.

However, Martin Howe, representing the suppliers, including QC Leisure, said the current situation had "reduced competition and deprived consumers of choice and culture".

He argued the FAPL had attempted to use "artificial barriers" around satellite broadcasts that were "disproportionate." He concluded that the argument the market should be regulated is "entirely contrary to the aim of the (EU) treaty, which is to create a single market".

Marie Demetriou, representing Murphy, who was not present in court, argued the decoder cards were not "illicit" devices, as they had been placed on the market by the broadcasters.

She said the reason the FAPL were using the barriers was to "maximise revenue". "This is not justification for serious infringement of free movement," she said.