Looking at the video of her hearing in the European Parliament, I do understand this value-chain: talk is not her strongest point. Take a look at the Video of the hearing, and for instance start at 18:04:24, when the Chairwoman of the Committe on Culture and Education, Doris Pack,  asks Kroes for her defnition of a balanced dual broadcasting-system and the role of public service media. The Chairman of the hearing gives Kroes the floor, saying “Ms Kroes - straight question, straight answer!” And then comes Kroes’ answer:

Neelie Kroes: It is a very clear question and we are aware that depending on the public broadcasting services we try to deal with principles all over the place the same, and tailor-made approaches; but in itself we should be quite clear, the definition has to be as clear as crystal, for otherwise we are not getting a real result out of our discussions. And what we did in the past in competition, in competition issues, was, I imagine, quite acceptable also for you, to find a way in which the diversity is still there and that is a big issue, that is one of those issues that we are fond of in Europe and that is still a competitive market in which at the end of the day the consumer is able to pick out what he or she is preferring.

Everything clear as crystal? I do think Commissioner Kroes could learn a thing or two from the legendary Sir Humphrey of the BBC-series “Yes, Minister”, who put it much better:

Jim Hacker: “When you give your evidence to the Think Tank, are you going to support my view that the Civil Service is over manned and feather-bedded, or not? Yes or no? Straight answer.”
Sir Humphrey: “Well Minister, if you ask me for a straight answer, then I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another in terms of the average of departments, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably wasn’t very much in it one way or the other. As far as one can see, at this stage.”
Jim Hacker: “Is that Yes or No?”
Sir Humphrey: “Yes and no.”
Jim Hacker: “Supposed you weren’t asked for a straight answer?”
Sir Humphrey: “Then I should play for time, Minister.”

• Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Office
• Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws
• Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services

In addition to the regulation and the directives there is also the Commission Decision 2009/978/EU of 16 December 2009 amending Decision 2002/622/EC establishing a Radio Spectrum Policy Group and the Commission declaration on net neutrality (which is also published as an addendum to the directive 2009/140/EC).

With the adoption of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, the diverse initiatives at the national level were complemented by a general European framework provision on advertising of unhealthy food and drink set out in Article 3e (2) AVMSD [the ‘food provision’] stipulating that

Member States and the Commission shall encourage media service providers to develop codes of conduct regarding inappropriate audiovisual commercial communication, accompanying or included in children’s programmes, of foods and beverages containing nutrients and substances with a nutritional or physiological effect, in particular those such as fat, trans-fatty acids, salt/sodium and sugars, excessive intakes of which in the overall diet are not recommended.

The obligation thus made incumbent on the Commission and the Member States is similar to that of Article 3c of the new Directive, which requires national authorities to encourage providers to increase accessibility of their services to users with a hearing or visual disability. While both provisions target very tangible characteristics of both linear and non-linear audiovisual media services, the nature of the obligations that they impose inevitably leads to questions about their likely effectiveness. (more…)

The Court’s judgment is rather straightforward and a very thorough vindication of the Commission’s position. The Court deals with and upholds every single complaint of the Commission and concludes that the German law did indeed restrict the NRA’s discretion more than is permitted by the Framework Directive (and also contravenes the Access and Universal Service Directive).

Today also marks the end of the blogging holidays: after a hiatus of some five months I have decided not to close the blog down completely, but to continue with a lighter schedule and just focus on following the case law developments in European electronic communications. So don’t expect frequent posts, but keep subscribed to the feed if you are interested in the cases decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union (new name - but I guess I can still abbreviate it as ECJ) and the General Court of the European Union (formerly known as Court of First Instance of the European Communities - I have no idea how to abbreviate this Court correctly, so I just started using “GC”).

I have updated the list of pending cases and added a new list of decided cases, linking not only to the judgments, but also to the blog posts here (or, if I didn’t write about the case here, to the blog posts at my German language blog e-comm).

And just as a brief update, I can point you to these cases decided over the past five months:

• C-192/08 TeliaSonera (interconnection requirement, article 4 access directive); judgment of 12 November 2009 see here at e-comm (German);
• C-202/09 Commission v. Ireland and C-211/09 Commission v. Greece (failure to transpose the data retention directive); judgment of 26 November 2009 see here at e-comm (German);
• T-427/04 France v. Commission and T-17/05 France Télécom v. Commission (state aid, annulment of Commission decision C(2004) 3061); judgment of 30 November 2009 see here at e-comm (German);
• T-8/06 FAB v. Commission, T-21/06 Germany v. Commission, T-24/06 MABB v. Commission (state aid, annulment of Commission decision C(2005)3903, aid for DVB-T-introduction in Berlin-Brandenburg); judgments of 6 October 2009.

New opinions of the advocate general are available in these cases:

• C-58/08 Vodafone (is article 4 of the roaming regulation invalid?); opinion of advocate general on 1 October 2009, see here at e-comm (German);
• C-317 /08, C-318/08, C-319/08 and C-320/08, Alassini, Califano, Iacono, Multiservice; mandatory attempt at conciliation (see here); opinion of advocate general on 1 October 2009, see here at e-comm (German).

*) Shakespeare, King Richard III, Act IV, Scene 4

*) Shakespeare, King Henry V, Act I Scene 1)