The three resources of unconstitutionality presented/displayed by the Socialist Group of the Congress in 1997 against other so many legal norms approved by the then Government of the PP, that unleashed the denominated war of the decoders of then the incipient platforms of digital television by satellite, have been rejected by the plenary session of the Constitutional Court. In his resolution, the High Court differs of the appellants and affirms that these norms did not affect to the constitutional rights to the free expression and information.
In particular, the resources talk about to the decree law 1/1997 and the later law 17/1997 that the European directive transposed on transmission of signals of digital television by satellite with system of conditional access, that established the exigency of which no operator could prevent the competition imposing a specific system of decoding for his signal and that it was not valid so that the user could change of operator without having to do it of decoder.
The Government of the PP determined that if an agreement between operators were not possible, had to prioritize the system of conditional access that considered more interoperable, multicrypt, that he used Via Digitalis, to the detriment of simulcrypt of Satelite channel.
Urgency did not exist
The resources of the PSOE were based on which the urgency alleged by the Government did not exist to make against this question by means of a real decree law, and that its content transcended to the transposition of the European directive to end up affecting to the exercise of the constitutional rights to the free expression and the information.
The sentence of the Constitutionalist argues, in addition, who the creation of a registry of operators, a system of administrative authorization, or of a sanctioning regime does not represent an arrangement of those constitutional rights, but rather a regulation to the technical instruments that allow their exercise.
With respect to the own systems of conditional access, the appellants argued that the opposed disposition introduced limitations to the commercialization of a system and apparatuses (simulcrypt used by Satellite Channel) that are not justified by the proportionality principle.
Nevertheless, the Constitutionalist understands that if the purpose of the Government consisted of regulating for the first time the digital television by satellite by means of conditional access and doing it according to European directive 95/4, must consider for such aims the adopted measures suitable, including the contained technical specifications in the directive, that determined indispensable to establish norms common for the digital transmission of signals of television by satellite to favor the free competition effectively.