Examples of using Decoder cards in English and their translations into Slovenian
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Financial
-
Computer
-
Official/political
-
Programming
By contrast,Directive 93/83 is not relevant in regard to the use of Arab decoder cards.
The FAPL argues convincingly that the importation of decoder cards would make it more difficult, or even impossible, to enforce this closed period.
The transmission of football matches is exploited through the charge for the decoder cards.
It is therefore irrelevant whether decoder cards were procured and/or enabled in the other Member State by the provision of a false name and a false residential address.
The broadcasting right is alsonot limited by conditions relating to the issue of decoder cards.
These proceedings refer to the use of foreign decoder cards in the UK to access foreign satellite transmissions of live Premier Leagues football matches.
Case C-403/08 concerns civil-lawactions brought by the FAPL against the use of foreign decoder cards.
The actions relate to the use of foreign decoder cards in the United Kingdom to access foreign satellite transmissions of live Premier League football matches.
The FAPL takes the view that the directive prohibits the use of decoder cards outside the area assigned to them.
In the present cases, the live transmission of Premier Leaguefootball matches is exploited, in particular, through the charge imposed for the decoder cards.
Companies import decoder cards from abroad, in the present proceedings from Greece, into the United Kingdom and offer them to pubs at more favourable prices than the broadcaster in that State.
The exclusivity agreementalso imposes restrictions on the circulation of authorised decoder cards outside the territory of each licensee.
As Ms Murphy rightly submits, those circumstances cannot influence the application of thefundamental freedoms in relation to the final customers for the decoder cards.
Certain pubs in the UnitedKingdom have begun to use foreign decoder cards, issued by a Greek broadcaster to subscribers resident in Greece, to access Premier League matches.
European Union law does not make it possible to prohibit the live transmission of Premier Leaguefootball matches in pubs by means of foreign decoder cards.
Consequently, the licence agreement prohibits the broadcasters from supplying decoder cards to persons who wish to watch their broadcasts outside the Member State for which the licence is granted.
In Greece, the sub-licensee was(and remains) NetMed Hellas SA, which in practical termswas prohibited by contract from supplying the relevant decoder cards outside Greece.
Undertakings import decoder cards from abroad, in the present cases from Greece and Arab States, into the United Kingdom and offer them to pubs there at more favourable prices than the broadcaster in that State.
However, in the present cases there are no contractual relations between the rights-holders andthe providers of decoder cards in the United Kingdom or the publicans.
The practice of marketing decoder cards follows this logic, since the broadcasting organisations charge pubs a higher fee for using decoder cards, whilst they enjoin private customers to use their cards only for domestic or private purposes.
Furthermore, QC Leisure and AV Station have allegedly infringed the copyrights by authorising the acts perpetrated by the defendants in the third action,as well as by other persons to whom they have supplied decoder cards.
In the view of QC Leisure and others,the actions are unfounded because they are not using pirate decoder cards, all of the cards in question having been issued and placed upon the market, in another Member State, by the relevant satellite broadcaster.
The system of contracts includes a covenant of exclusivity that the FAPL will appoint only one broadcaster within any particular territory andrestrictions on the circulation of authorised decoder cards outside the territory of each licensee.
Those decoder cards have been manufactured and marketed with the authorisation of the service provider, but they are subsequently used in an unauthorised manner, since the broadcasters have made their issue subject to the condition- in accordance with the undertakings set out in paragraph 35 of the present judgment- that customers do not use them outside the national territory concerned.
The first case(C-403/08) concerns a civil action brought by the FAPL against pubs that have screenedPremier League matches by using Greek decoder cards and against the suppliers of such decoder cards to those pubs.
Lastly, both in Case C‑429/08(Question 6(iii)) and in Case C‑403/08(Question 8(c)),questions are asked as to the significance of a contractual restriction on using decoder cards in the State of origin only for domestic or private use, but not for commercial use, for which a higher subscription charge is payable.
The key enabling thepublic to decode those signals is incorporated in a decoder card that is made available to Airfield by Canal Digitaal.
The FAPL takes the view that a decoder card lawfully sold in one Member State becomes an illicit device if it is used in another Member State against the will of the undertaking broadcasting the protected service.
In order to be able to view these channels, customers must therefore enter into a subscription agreement with Airfield, which provides them, in return for payment,with a card that enables decoding(‘decoder card').
The intervention of Airfield and Canal Digitaal is confined to supply of the access keys to the broadcasting organisations concerned, so that the correct codes are applied and Airfield's subscribers are therebyenabled to decode the programmes subsequently by using the decoder card.