First, the court approves the pkt. Because he understands that set-top boxes are the most important tool for providing a good service which includes the supply of audio content to a contracting party.

The second question is whether UK law prohibits the import, sale and use of foreign managers in violation of the free trade agreement for goods and services.

From the very first,

 The court first ruled that no rights could be granted to the games because they were not considered assets under the copyright rules. This is especially true of football, which is subject to the rules of the game and does not allow for freedom of expression in terms of rights. “

Second, the Court recognizes that domestic law does not restrict the application of intellectual property rights. “Only the insured – as foreseen by article ten of the copyright directive and article 5 of the associated copyright directive – has the right to the reasonable use of each protected object” and not the annex. It will be entirely relevant to consider the objectives measured for the general audience and the data reported during the census.

With regional supplement,

“It can set prices between different markets around the world. However, this difference and the result of raw material prices are not compatible with the main objective of the agreement, which is the completion of an internal market.

In conclusion, the Court notes that the code of conduct violates the right to provide services guaranteed by Article 56 TFEU.

The prime minister then tries to justify the blockade

 Regarding the freedom to provide public services in the stadium, as the judge stated: “In this case, even if the aim were to facilitate public access to the stadium, it would be an obstacle to the most important freedoms possible. Proof of compliance with this law will be ensured by the conclusion of a licensing agreement between the rights holders and 스포츠중계  which will require broadcasters to play matches against the Premier League during qualifiers, but cannot be denied. That such a measure violates fundamental freedoms to a lesser extent than a measure that places restrictions on the highest rule. “