Satellite dishes and Irish law

SakisP

Hi all,

Looking for any opinions on this matter:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055361070&page=2

It really does look like the Irish state has taken the EU recommendations (link in page 1 of that post) on how to allow satellite dish usage and applied them EXCLUSIVELY to houses, leaving apartment dwellers out in the cold...

Doesn't SDCC have to provide an alternative before they start issuing enforcement orders about something they have been ignoring for years now?

Maximilian

I think it's quite a complex issue. The EU regulations are not breached I don't think. As far as the law goes, you are entitled to mount a satellite dish if you are an apartment owner, provided it's not over 1 metre in diameter and not attached to the front of the building or what not. I haven't checked to see if apartments are specifically excluded, maybe they are. Regardless, I don't think that's what's stopping you erecting a dish.

It's the way apartment complexes are structured legally that's the issue. If you own an apartment, you effectively own just the airspace inside. You don't own the balcony (you have an exclusive license), you don't own the exterior walls. You don't therefore have a right to erect anything because you don't own it, the management company does.

A typical lease under which an apartment is owned will contain a covenant not to erect a dish. The management company is the Landlord for the purpose of the apartment owner's lease and can prevent you from erecting one. Of course a management company is made up of the owners, so if a majority of them were in favour of allowing it, it could be done. If not however, then I see it as fair that they be able to say no and in this regard competition law or planning law is irrelevant.

Shared dishes are also an option. Sky have a link on their website for interested persons and will approach management companies, which is a bloody clever idea on their part. Again, only the management company can permit a satellite dish to be placed on the roof.

Tom Young

NTL provide a little box which allows you to have an erection in-doors! boom boom.

Sits inside the confines of the apartment but does the same work as a satellite, for the life of me can't think of what they are called.

Tom

Maximilian

It's called Junk. I would love to move to SKY. Far better pornog..er. documentaries. HD ones too.

I really have to learn to hit the "reply" button instead of the "edit" button Tom.

IRISH RAIL

would a clause in a contract not breach the competition laws ? if it was only ntl/fixed line services allowed into an apartment

Del2005

Maximilian wrote: »

Shared dishes are also an option. Sky have a link on their website for interested persons and will approach management companies, which is a bloody clever idea on their part. Again, only the management company can permit a satellite dish to be placed on the roof.

But the problem with this is that Sky can't run wires without the MC's permission. Where I live there is a new apartment block just built where they are charging extra to get Sky. Their logic is that they own the cables into your apartment and the only way to get Sky is to pay them each month for the rent of their cables. Several people have contacted Sky and they have enough but the MC won't let Sky in, as for strange reason the developers and cable company have the same address.

SakisP

Maximilian wrote: »

I think it's quite a complex issue. The EU regulations are not breached I don't think. As far as the law goes, you are entitled to mount a satellite dish if you are an apartment owner, provided it's not over 1 metre in diameter and not attached to the front of the building or what not. I haven't checked to see if apartments are specifically excluded, maybe they are. Regardless, I don't think that's what's stopping you erecting a dish.

They are wrongfully excluded - please check out this part of the original post:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57344019&postcount=17

Maximilian wrote: »

It's the way apartment complexes are structured legally that's the issue. If you own an apartment, you effectively own just the airspace inside. You don't own the balcony (you have an exclusive license), you don't own the exterior walls. You don't therefore have a right to erect anything because you don't own it, the management company does.

A typical lease under which an apartment is owned will contain a covenant not to erect a dish. The management company is the Landlord for the purpose of the apartment owner's lease and can prevent you from erecting one. Of course a management company is made up of the owners, so if a majority of them were in favour of allowing it, it could be done. If not however, then I see it as fair that they be able to say no and in this regard competition law or planning law is irrelevant.

However, the action in this case is taken by South Dublin County Council - all the Management Company did was to emphasize the serious nature of their potential enforcement order against non-complying apartment dwellers, based on planning law which does not offer alternatives to the latter.

Maximilian wrote: »

Shared dishes are also an option. Sky have a link on their website for interested persons and will approach management companies, which is a bloody clever idea on their part. Again, only the management company can permit a satellite dish to be placed on the roof.

The choice of what services are selected are up to the apartment dwellers - they might not want just Sky Digital, but other continental European free-to-air content which they are entitled to receive without hindrance - the EU document I quote in the original post is very specific.

Maximilian

Del2005 wrote: »

But the problem with this is that Sky can't run wires without the MC's permission. Where I live there is a new apartment block just built where they are charging extra to get Sky. Their logic is that they own the cables into your apartment and the only way to get Sky is to pay them each month for the rent of their cables. Several people have contacted Sky and they have enough but the MC won't let Sky in, as for strange reason the developers and cable company have the same address.

It takes a few years before the handover to the MC is complete. When it is complete, then the developer has no say in anything anymore. Collectively, the owners can decide whatever they want. Up to that point however, the developer often has loaded voting rights etc. and can often dictate matters.

SakisP wrote: »

They are wrongfully excluded - please check out this part of the original post:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57344019&postcount=17

However, the action in this case is taken by South Dublin County Council - all the Management Company did was to emphasize the serious nature of their potential enforcement order against non-complying apartment dwellers, based on planning law which does not offer alternatives to the latter.

Again, I think this is largely irrelevant. The reasoning behind excluding apartments is the planners don't want satellite dishes hanging off every apartment. It looks pretty bad, so I don't have an issue with this. I think most people wouldn't have an issue with it.

That said, there is nothing in law that stops an apartment block having a communal dish, just not individual ones. The problem is getting the management company to agree to one being installed. The problem is getting all of the MC shareholders ie. the other apartment owners to agree to it. If a majority refuse, how is that unfair?

SakisP

Maximilian wrote: »

Again, I think this is largely irrelevant. The reasoning behind excluding apartments is the planners don't want satellite dishes hanging off every apartment. It looks pretty bad, so I don't have an issue with this. I think most people wouldn't have an issue with it.

That said, there is nothing in law that stops an apartment block having a communal dish, just not individual ones. The problem is getting the management company to agree to one being installed. The problem is getting all of the MC shareholders ie. the other apartment owners to agree to it. If a majority refuse, how is that unfair?

The enforcement action threat by South Dublin County Council is the problem in this instance. They want all dishes removed by the 1st of October or else. Their basis is on "unauthorized development" as per the Planning and Development legislation (Act 2000 and Regulations 2001) as mentioned in the original post.

What is infuriating in this case is that SDCC did not say something like "as it is your right to have access to satellite signals, please convert to a communal dish by that date etc." - they just want all dishes out while they did absolutely nothing for years until now. I am sure they will not have a problem for a communal dish (nor will the management company I believe) but to ask people to remove their dishes after years of saying and doing nothing about it until now is very hypocritical. Incidentally, a new development opposite the apartment blocks was built recently, which probably explains the sudden interest - someone "blew the whistle" to SDCC having seen the "unatractive" dishes across the road...

The failure of SDCC in keeping silent on the apartment dwellers' right to receive satellite signals so blatantly must surely be against them, isn't it? Or is it the fault of the management company who did not anticipate this situation? In fact, the management company had specifically banned satellite dishes without having the real legal power to do so (as they failed to get a single dish removed all these years) and did not mention a future communal dish scenario in their documents.

Maximilian

It's frustrating but I think SDCC are in the right here.

wil

Maximilian wrote: »

I think it's quite a complex issue. The EU regulations are not breached I don't think. As far as the law goes, you are entitled to mount a satellite dish if you are an apartment owner, provided it's not over 1 metre in diameter and not attached to the front of the building or what not. I haven't checked to see if apartments are specifically excluded, maybe they are. Regardless, I don't think that's what's stopping you erecting a dish.

It's the way apartment complexes are structured legally that's the issue. If you own an apartment, you effectively own just the airspace inside. You don't own the balcony (you have an exclusive license), you don't own the exterior walls. You don't therefore have a right to erect anything because you don't own it, the management company does.

A typical lease under which an apartment is owned will contain a covenant not to erect a dish. The management company is the Landlord for the purpose of the apartment owner's lease and can prevent you from erecting one. Of course a management company is made up of the owners, so if a majority of them were in favour of allowing it, it could be done. If not however, then I see it as fair that they be able to say no and in this regard competition law or planning law is irrelevant.

Shared dishes are also an option. Sky have a link on their website for interested persons and will approach management companies, which is a bloody clever idea on their part. Again, only the management company can permit a satellite dish to be placed on the roof.

This is why I wasn't really in favour of this discussion moving from the satellite forum. Satellite reception is a very specific situation and the legal stance has already been discussed at much length on its home forum. Here we are already going down the well worn and debunked route of management companies etc.
They well and truly are contravening EU law if they blanket refuse apartment owners/renters perhaps even squatters (I jest) the right to satellite services (which entail erection of satellite dish by their very nature). Ownership of the bricks and mortar does not give management companies or councils the right to deny dwellers their right to Freedom of services.

The EU has made this very clear. Does it all need to be said again?

www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055124066&page=3

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53694964&postcount=50

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055124066

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055115582

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055099392

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055132609

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055124066

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055361167

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055308565

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055099392

What is needed is some discussion of the obvious disparity between EU law and Irish planning regulations and attempts by various organisations/ManCos/local gov to deny these rights to satellite services afforded under EU law.

Maximilian

I think you are getting annoyed and frustrated because you are not hearing what you would like. My opinion on the matter is as above I'm afraid. I don't think the planning law contravenes EU Law. I don't think management companies are doing anything wrong, if acting by the wishes of it's members.

I wish it were otherwise. Perhaps others have a different view and might share it here.

wil

Maximilian wrote: »

I think you are getting annoyed and frustrated because you are not hearing what you would like. My opinion on the matter is as above I'm afraid. I don't think the planning law contravenes EU Law. I don't think management companies are doing anything wrong, if acting by the wishes of it's members.

I wish it were otherwise. Perhaps others have a different view and might share it here.

Perhaps the point is that it is otherwise.
So many people are convinced by bully boy Manco stance that they now believe the hype.

Annoyed and frustrated, certainly not by the regulations, perhaps a little when common sense is ignored and documents unread.
My dish farm of 7 freestanding ground mounted out of sight dishes is currently unaffected by any legislation that I am aware of.:)

Which of the previously cited EU documents have you read from which you draw your current conclusions?

Maximilian

I take objection to you implying that my opinion is based on "hype" or some such. It's based on my own knowledge of the law. I've given you my reasons. I don't really think EU law comes into this all that much. I'll leave the thread open for further discussion, in case someone else has another opinion or something else to add but I think I've said as much as I need or want to on the matter.

Btw I clicked on "edit" instead of "reply" above by mistake, so I didn't actually edit your post!

SakisP

Maximilian wrote: »

It's frustrating but I think SDCC are in the right here.

Yes, they are... if the EU regulations that guarantee the right to receive satellite signals to all EU residents are ignored.

If someone is issued with an enforcement order as per their threat, isn't that someone entitled to challenge it using the EU regulations?

Sorry, I know you said you have already expressed your opinion on the matter, but it was not clear exactly why you think SDCC are in the right. If it is due to purely (and blindly) following the planning laws, then we agree also that this blind action is against EU regulations, right?

Maximilian

SakisP wrote: »

Yes, they are... if the EU regulations that guarantee the right to receive satellite signals to all EU residents are ignored.

If someone is issued with an enforcement order as per their threat, isn't that someone entitled to challenge it using the EU regulations?

Sorry, I know you said you have already expressed your opinion on the matter, but it was not clear exactly why you think SDCC are in the right. If it is due to purely (and blindly) following the planning laws, then we agree also that this blind action is against EU regulations, right?

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. The planning laws, the EU regulations etc etc. Just because the EU says you have the right to something, it doesn't mean it is an absolute right, one you can exercise without limit.

There is nothing at law preventing an apartment owner access to a satellite dish, but that is not a carte blanche right to erect it anywhere nor is it for a house owner either. So that being the case, why can't Mr. Apt. Owner erect a satellite dish? Because he doesn't own the walls, the balconies, the roof etc. the MC does. The MC can make the rules. There's nothing wrong with that because the MC is made up of all the owners, who should have the right to decide how their complex is run. If you want a dish but every other owner objects to them, that's your tough sh!t. Is this contrary to competition law, EU or domestic? No.

Let's simplify it. Lets say you have a house, the bottom half owned by A, the top half by B. The only way A can get satellite TV is by mounting a dish on the roof. B owns the roof and says no. Can A force B? No. Is B doing anything illegal? No. Now what's the difference? There's none. This has not a case of the law preventing you access to satellite TV.

wil

Maximilian wrote: »

I take objection to you implying that my opinion is based on "hype" or some such. It's based on my own knowledge of the law. I've given you my reasons. I don't really think EU law comes into this all that much. I'll leave the thread open for further discussion, in case someone else has another opinion or something else to add but I think I've said as much as I need or want to on the matter.

Btw I clicked on "edit" instead of "reply" above by mistake, so I didn't actually edit your post!

I wasnt implying that your opinion is based on "hype", that was a general implication on the subject as the general public seem to perceive it, I did however imply that you dont appear to have read the previously cited EU documentation.

The points you make are specifically addressed within them.

It is also very common sense and so perhaps alien to some lawmakers.

EU law hasnt come in to this so far because no individual in Ireland has tested it against the financial mights of Mancos and councils.

However no person or authority has the right to deny your fundamental right to Freedom of services.
That does not imply your right to the freedom of services gives you a right to tresspass or criminal damage. That is where the argument tends to stray in an attempt to prove itself. On the contrary, if you physically cannot receive services from your home then the Manco etc should be allowing you to avail of communal dishes.

The example you state is attempting to put obligation on another householder, and as I have previously stated that is a farcical argument and simply a curve ball to detract from the common sense stance the EU has stated.

No authority has the right to blanket deny your right to Freedom of dervices, and laws made that do so are therefore at odds with the EU law and could potentially be overturned.

"Moreover, as the Court of Justice has repeatedly pointed out, it is not only the actions of public authorities which must not restrict this fundamental freedom, but the same principle also applies to other kinds of rules aiming to regulate service provision collectively. In fact, removing obstacles to the free movement of services, a fundamental objective of the European Union, would be compromised if the obstacles to be removed were only those set by the state and did not include those resulting from the exercise of their legal autonomy by associations or organisations which are not governed by public law (see, inter alia, the judgments of 12 December 1974, Walrave, 36/74; 9 June 1977, van Ameyde, 90/76; 14 July 1976, Donà, C-13/76; 15 December 1995, Bosman, C-415/93, and 13 April 2000, Lehtonen, C-176/96)."
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdo...3/617113en.pdf
(not a long document at all)

Maximilian

I think you're right in that it hasn't properly been tested in Ireland but until that happens, I think the position is as I stated. I'd love to see a case on the issue taken in Ireland and understand I am on your side of the fence here. Long time dissatisfied NTL customer here. It's obviously something that affects thousands, myself included. I must inquire about my own development actually.

I don't personally think that "decision" really has any real application at all except perhaps in circumstances where a MC unreasonably refuses to erect a communal dish. Even then, you are talking about one person's right of access to services vs. the property rights of others. Neither right is absolute. I don't think it has application to individual apartment owners & whether they can erect dishes of their own, unless they actually own the exterior walls and/or balcony. In that event yes, perhaps any covenant in a lease preventing dishes could be struck down. It pivots on being given access to services, not sticking up your own dish.

There are other issues at play here. I'm labouring the point at this stage but it seems to be ignored. The house example you describe as "farcical" was to illustrate the fact that as against a right to satellite services, you have the property rights of the owner of the building upon which you wish to erect the dish, also protected by law. Just because the Commission says somewhere you have a right to satellite services doesn't mean you can wave these rights in the air and trample over the rights of another person with equally valid and legally protected rights. I presume you would accept in my farcical example that the person would not have the right to erect a dish on the roof owned by another? If your answer is yes, then how are the property rights of a MC any different?

Insofar as planning law goes, I think a blanket ban on dishes would be contrary to EU law. Allowing them but with conditions is fine. The law doesn't stop you erecting a dish though, even if you live in an apartment. It's not planning law that's the problem in my view.

In that document you linked to, there's a few quotes of interest

The individual's right to install a satellite dish, which is
covered by freedom of expression, must be exercised in a way that respects certain
arrangements for information and consultation, particularly in buildings occupied by several
people, and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

it is not clear from the petition itself or from the further
information what are the arguments put forward by the building’s householders’ association
for opposing the installation of a satellite dish, or what are the alternative solutions proposed
or the extra costs entailed.

In the light of the foregoing, the information received is not sufficient to reach a conclusion as
to whether and to what extent the petitioner's right to install a satellite dish has been
infringed.’ .

It doesn't decide the issue and pretty much flings it back to national courts to decide. It was based on incomplete facts and simply restates a right to services in principal. It's interesting that there is no mention of who owned the exterior walls and balcony.

The real underlying problem we have here is a lack of competition. I don't think any of us would give a crap about dishes if we could obtain services we wanted from cable. As you probably know, SKY have this service where they will approach management companies on behalf of interested apartment owners with a view to installing a communal dish. My prediction is that they will take a test case at some point.

wil

Now have read the non-findings of the previous document, (all that doc really says is that the interested parties hadnt proven the denial of the fundamental right. That is essentially all that was needed to prove their case. They hadnt prepared properly. Issue fudged yet again)

could you cast your eyes over this.

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/doc/info_centre/communic_reports/satellite_dish/antenna_en.pdf

I dont think its a case of one right over another, it is one right versus a made up right of a quasi-organisation whose structure is currently being investigated (why do they take so long to come back on anything) and is supposed to represent the interests of it's members.

Maximilian

I don't think that's of much assistance. It deals with laws essentially. Interestingly it supports the existing planning law as it relates to Dishes.

It is though, a case of satellite rights vs. property ones. The only way you can mount a dish, is on the property of the management company. I don't see any way around this. If you own the wall or balcony, it's a different story. A MC is made up of its owners. There's nothing to say it can't decide to allow individual dishes. It's up to all of the owners as members of the company to decide. The opportunity is there. That's a word used in those articles. It doesn't say absolute guarantee.

SakisP

Maximilian wrote: »

...

Insofar as planning law goes, I think a blanket ban on dishes would be contrary to EU law. Allowing them but with conditions is fine. The law doesn't stop you erecting a dish though, even if you live in an apartment. It's not planning law that's the problem in my view.

...

That's exactly the problem in the SDCC threat which I brought into light. They don't care what the MC rules say, they don't care about what the EU regulations stipulate - as long as they apply planning law, they think they can slap you with an enforcement order after a deadline and offer NO alternative whatsoever. All they said in their original letter (addressed to "the Resident" in each case) was basically "strip your dishes off or prepare for fines and court action". Any rights that were being trampled upon were either completely unknown to them (which makes them ignorant) or completely ignored (which makes them insincere for not referring to them in their letter) - blind bureaucracy at its finest.

If anyone can do anything at this stage, it will be either SOLVIT on an EU level or the Ombudsman on an Irish level. The particular MC has done nothing to enforce its own rules (because they probably know they will lose if challenged) and SDCC have been totally bureaucratic without concern for the unfair treatment which apartment dwellers have to (continue to) deal with.

Maximilian

SDCC do not have to concern themselves with MC rules. They don't stop you erecting dishes per se, as long as it complies with planning law. From what I was reading earlier, the planing regs seems to comply with EU law. The problem is the MC, not the planners.

I think legislation is needed and I believe it is, as far as management companies go.

wil

Maximilian wrote: »

I don't think that's of much assistance. It deals with laws essentially. Interestingly it supports the existing planning law as it relates to Dishes.

It is though, a case of satellite rights vs. property ones. The only way you can mount a dish, is on the property of the management company. I don't see any way around this. If you own the wall or balcony, it's a different story. A MC is made up of its owners. There's nothing to say it can't decide to allow individual dishes. It's up to all of the owners as members of the company to decide. The opportunity is there. That's a word used in those articles. It doesn't say absolute guarantee.

We must be reading different documents then.

The support it gives to planning regs is that it sugggests there may be exceptional circumstances where there may be cause for certain restrictions, which is sensible, but not a blanket ban or restriction that applies across the board. They really couldn't say it any clearer :rolleyes:(well yes they could by bloody well legislating it which is what they should have done and saved a lot of nuisance and nonsense.)

This is essentially what eventually happened in the US, they had similar freedom of services type rights, but no hard and fast legislation, so when a large Manco umbrella group went to court against someone who rightly felt they were being overly heavy handed, thinking they had it sewn up with much the same arguments you have stated, they lost badly and had to rewrite their own rules.
Common sense and rights won out over bully boy tactics of the mancos and now US citizens may erect dishes according to sensible legislated conditions and guidelines.

That is what needs to happen here. No one is really suggesting anything other than common sense, and not that all planning regulations are simply thrown out and proper concerns arent correctly considered,
But as for Mancos being able to decide the extent of their own powers over the rights of others, that has to end.

SakisP

OK, let me put it another way then:

- HOW IT HAPPENED
SDCC to apartment dwellers (addressed namelessly as "The Resident" in each case): You have X days to take down your satellite dishes, even though we never cared about them for years and years - suddenly, we feel an itch and we need to scratch. Anyway, if you don't, we will b!itch-slap you with the extent of the law and screw any other rights you might have, because we only care about house dwellers, who are more and longer established that you, and go complain to anyone who will hear you if you somehow find out that we are actually abusing your rights.

- HOW IT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED
SDCC to MC: Look, we know the legislation is a bit silly right now for apartments, but at least communal dishes are a definite option for your residents. You can put them anywhere that we cannot see them as an eye sore, like Sky tells you if you ask them. Hey, your rights will be respected but we have our laws to abide by as well, so let's work together and keep everyone happy here.

Hands up whoever thinks the latter action plan was even considered before the former was executed...

Maximilian

wil wrote: »

We must be reading different documents then.

This is the bit I was referring to

For example, purely as a guide, and to the extent that they would technically permit the
individual to receive the broadcasts (s)he desired under reasonable conditions and at a
reasonable cost, national regulations laying down the following might, at first glance, be
acceptable under Articles 28 to 30 and 49 et seq. EC:
– giving preference to placing individual satellite dishes in areas that would not be
visible from the street, or as unobtrusive as possible (for example on a private,
interior balcony or in a spot behind the edge of the roof rather than on the facade of
the building);
– providing for a single dish, rather than a number of them, for the same user, or
installing a single, shared dish, rather than several individual dishes, for a reasonable
number of different users (although this must not block the installation of additional
private dishes for additional services, the choice of installers available to the
individuals, or, whatever the circumstances, the option of setting up a private antenna
if a dispute arises among the users);
– laying down rules covering specific, justifiable requirements for the shape, size or
colour of dishes installed on buildings or in certain areas;
– requiring shared dishes and cables to be installed as unobtrusively as possible in
buildings that are under construction or to be erected in future; for example, dishes
could be installed on the side of the internal courtyard, or in places that cannot be
seen from the street, while connecting cables could be located on the courtyard side,
within the building itself, or in existing conduits.

Maximilian

SakisP wrote: »

OK, let me put it another way then:

- HOW IT HAPPENED
SDCC to apartment dwellers (addressed namelessly as "The Resident" in each case): You have X days to take down your satellite dishes, even though we never cared about them for years and years - suddenly, we feel an itch and we need to scratch. Anyway, if you don't, we will b!itch-slap you with the extent of the law and screw any other rights you might have, because we only care about house dwellers, who are more and longer established that you, and go complain to anyone who will hear you if you somehow find out that we are actually abusing your rights.

- HOW IT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED
SDCC to MC: Look, we know the legislation is a bit silly right now for apartments, but at least communal dishes are a definite option for your residents. You can put them anywhere that we cannot see them as an eye sore, like Sky tells you if you ask them. Hey, your rights will be respected but we have our laws to abide by as well, so let's work together and keep everyone happy here.

Hands up whoever thinks the latter action plan was even considered before the former was executed...

They are not obliged to consider the latter approach however sensible it might be.

wil

Maximilian wrote: »

This is the bit I was referring to

This paragraph you cited was taken from the section dealing with Architectural and planning considerations and the preceding paragraph to the one quoted states

EU wrote:

Thus an attempt must be made to reconcile aesthetic considerations with the fundamental right of any interested individual to have access to information and services by installing a satellite dish.
Such an assessment can only be done by looking at the individual circumstances in each case.
Nonetheless, such restrictions must be duly substantiated, and the aesthetic considerations must be real and not merely a pretext. In addition, given the principle of proportionality, these restrictions cannot be applied in general. Each individual case must be looked at, and, where
specific restrictions are necessary, measures which impinge as little as possible on the fundamental freedom in question must be preferred

A rule of thumb for the national authorities in charge, which obviously would have to be adapted to each specific case, would be to lay down any necessary rules, which, while they protect the individual’s right to satellite reception of the services of his or her choosing, would prefer solutions which, at the same time, made it possible to keep the visual and aesthetic impact of installing a satellite dish to a minimum.

then the paragraph you quoted
followed by

EU wrote:

These are general guidelines which focus on the free movement of services. However, specific situations might require certain aesthetic considerations to be taken into account on an ad hoc basis. This applies in particular to the urban planning of historical town centres and the architectural protection of listed buildings.
National authorities may therefore expect certain specific requirements to be complied with to preserve the consistency of an architectural whole and the aesthetic feel of neighbourhoods which have a special historical or artistic value. In such situations, more restrictive measures (concerning the places and methods of installation) could be justified provided that they avoid imposing excessive requirements or impinging any more than strictly necessary on the individual right to the use of a satellite dish.
Moreover, for aesthetic reasons, it is not uncommon for particularly strict conditions to be set for any changes or additions to be made to listed buildings because of their monumental, architectural or historical value.
In sum, these circumstances are highly unusual and may justify special rules precisely because they are so different from ordinary situations which have no such restrictions and constraints.

Then follows the next section dealing with possible attempts to tax satellite services under which consideration Malta IIRC had to pay back illegally charged taxes placed on the erection of satellite dishes.

It is not a very long document, it is written in fairly clear plain English, and it does contain a lot of common sense so it really doesn't leave much room for out of context quotation or misinterpretation.

However as we are both agreed, it is an interpretation of the current EU laws by I'd assume some EU law heads, and hasn't been properly tested in our courts. Though on the basis of these essentially 'findings' it would be difficult to see how an EU court could come up with a different interpretation if a case did come before it.

Now I think I've spent too much time reading and rereading these various documents for something which has very little impact on my situation, time to put my energy to better use.

Anyone recognize the back of this law establishment?

bobbysands81

Maximilian wrote: »

I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. The planning laws, the EU regulations etc etc. Just because the EU says you have the right to something, it doesn't mean it is an absolute right, one you can exercise without limit.

There is nothing at law preventing an apartment owner access to a satellite dish, but that is not a carte blanche right to erect it anywhere nor is it for a house owner either. So that being the case, why can't Mr. Apt. Owner erect a satellite dish? Because he doesn't own the walls, the balconies, the roof etc. the MC does. The MC can make the rules. There's nothing wrong with that because the MC is made up of all the owners, who should have the right to decide how their complex is run. If you want a dish but every other owner objects to them, that's your tough sh!t. Is this contrary to competition law, EU or domestic? No.

Let's simplify it. Lets say you have a house, the bottom half owned by A, the top half by B. The only way A can get satellite TV is by mounting a dish on the roof. B owns the roof and says no. Can A force B? No. Is B doing anything illegal? No. Now what's the difference? There's none. This has not a case of the law preventing you access to satellite TV.

100% correct.

Think about it folks, why haven't SKY challenged Management Co's that won't let people have dishes on their apartments? After all they stand to make a fortune if the law is overturned. The answer is simple, they haven't challenged it cos they haven't a hope in hell of winning it.

EU Regs mean nothing, they are not law. If they become law then everything changes as we would have to abide by it. Until that happens satellite dishes will not be allowed if that is the rule in play by a Management Co.

I don't know why this keeps on cropping up, it is very clear what is and is not allowed.

spockety

bobbysands81 wrote: »

100% correct.

Think about it folks, why haven't SKY challenged Management Co's that won't let people have dishes on their apartments? After all they stand to make a fortune if the law is overturned. The answer is simple, they haven't challenged it cos they haven't a hope in hell of winning it.

EU Regs mean nothing, they are not law. If they become law then everything changes as we would have to abide by it. Until that happens satellite dishes will not be allowed if that is the rule in play by a Management Co.

I don't know why this keeps on cropping up, it is very clear what is and is not allowed.

Surely the fact that there has been no test case judgement EITHER WAY does not make it very clear what is and is not allowed?

Maximilian

bobbysands81 wrote: »

100% correct.

Think about it folks, why haven't SKY challenged Management Co's that won't let people have dishes on their apartments? After all they stand to make a fortune if the law is overturned. The answer is simple, they haven't challenged it cos they haven't a hope in hell of winning it.

EU Regs mean nothing, they are not law. If they become law then everything changes as we would have to abide by it. Until that happens satellite dishes will not be allowed if that is the rule in play by a Management Co.

I don't know why this keeps on cropping up, it is very clear what is and is not allowed.

Well in fairness it is law, as it derives from the treaties and so is directly effective here and supersedes domestic law. Nonetheless, I don't feel that Irish law contravenes EU here.

spockety wrote: »

Surely the fact that there has been no test case judgement EITHER WAY does not make it very clear what is and is not allowed?

You're dead right - anyone's opinion on the matter is just that - an opinion. We need a test case & I'd love to see one. I have 3 HDTV's at home and I have to make do with NTL's SD service, which really bugs me.

spockety

Maximilian wrote: »

Well in fairness it is law, as it derives from the treaties and so is directly effective here and supersedes domestic law. Nonetheless, I don't feel that Irish law contravenes EU here.



You're dead right - anyone's opinion on the matter is just that - an opinion. We need a test case & I'd love to see one. I have 3 HDTV's at home and I have to make do with NTL's SD service, which really bugs me.

Do you have a South facing balcony?

Maximilian

spockety wrote: »

Do you have a South facing balcony?

I have two! My neighbours had a sneaky dish up for about two months, and then it disappeared. I meant to ask them about it but they are too weird to talk to.

antoinolachtnai

Why not try to find a way to reduce the visual impact?

http://www.sqish.co.uk/

http://www.selkirkshire.demon.co.uk/analoguesat/paintingdishes.html

Maximilian

They're pretty cool but don't overcome the legal issue unfortunately. Might stop anyone noticing though.

Dr Galen

Hi all.

Been reading the previous post with great interest this evening. Today I received a flyer through the door from our managing agents acting on behalf of the Management Company for our development, instructing that satellite dishes are prohibited IN or ON the property. All said dishes need to be removed within 28 days or they will be removed by the managing agent and cost will be billed to me.

Now...........I'm always one for a crusade and to be honest the thoughts of NTL fills me with dread as I'm more than happy with Sky.

So as I see it, after reading the European document, I have a right to receive and view satellite transmissions, without any undue or crazy stipulations.

My dish is attached to the wall of my duplex style appartment, so seeing as I don't OWN that wall, well then maybe the Managing Agent is entitled to ask me to take the dish off said wall.

If I create a free standing structure though and attach my dish to the structure, placing this ON the balcony, then that would become a very grey issue, because as per lease, the balcony is for the exclusive usage of me the leaseholder.

On the issue of the dish being removed by the managing agent or contractors of their choice, well then they would a) be infringing of my agreement with them for exclusive usage of the balcony........de facto invasion of private/personal space and b) be interfering with my personal property (dish) without the authority of the law.

As far as I know, even a landlord CANNOT just show up unannounced to a rental property and demand entrance, so a possibly shady management agent certainly can't.

I'm writing a nice but firm letter to the managing agent tonight and enclosing the EU document for their perusal and see what happens. To be honest, if I can come to an accomodation with them that suits both sides I'll be happy. But if this kicks off from their side well then they might just have picked the wrong monkey.

Maximilian

In or on the property? You know if you had a a free standing dish within the wall of you apartment, I don't see what they could do. Not sure if that's possible or realistic.

If I create a free standing structure though and attach my dish to the structure, placing this ON the balcony, then that would become a very grey issue, because as per lease, the balcony is for the exclusive usage of me the leaseholder.

You could possibly be on to something there. Tables/Chairs & other things etc are always allowed, so it's hard to think of a justifiable reason why a free standing dish, especially if it were one of those dishes that look like lamps, could be objectionable. If it's on grounds of pure ashthetics, that's quite a subjective thing.

wil

About time someone considered taking up the challenge, well said Mystic.
We will be right behind you for any angles to consider. So far all I've seen is gaping holes in almost all the pro Manco/council arguments, those that have been challenged directly do seem to have backed off, they have tended to go for easy targets.
eg that Galway IIRC single mother who ended up in jail for nonpayment of a fine relating to a dish she no longer had.

From what I've read the only real reason the couple of cases that were brought to the attention of the EU courts don't seem to have gone very far was because they hadn't prepared. They didn't supply ample written proof.

You need to prove that the Manco refused you your rights, under any circumstances and get it all in writing and confirmed.
Give them enough rope to hang themselves.

In or on - now I'd say that is a blatant denial of your right.
Get them to elaborate - in writing, from as high a level as possible

The more they deny you the right to erect a dish, under any or all of the grounds deemed unacceptable in that EU document, the greater chance of winning. You might be found against in an Irish court under planning regs (or they might read the EU doc FULLY) but if there is not some exceptional reason to back that (historical interest, aesthetic beauty) it would be hard to see how the EU courts as they have stated so far wouldn't overturn it and finally legislate as happened in the US.

wil

Maximilian wrote: »

In You could possibly be on to something there. Tables/Chairs & other things etc are always allowed, so it's hard to think of a justifiable reason why a free standing dish, especially if it were one of those dishes that look like lamps, could be objectionable. If it's on grounds of pure ashthetics, that's quite a subjective thing.

Freestanding clothes dryers are banned by some Mancos from balconies.
There is however no freedom of right to air assisted laundry drying, so there is no legal grounds to dispute that if you dont want to use an electric dryer.

That is essentially the difference between the case of satellite dishes and any other example used to support their stance. Other blanket rules they can make, but against satellite, they cant.

bobbysands81

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

Hi all.

Been reading the previous post with great interest this evening. Today I received a flyer through the door from our managing agents acting on behalf of the Management Company for our development, instructing that satellite dishes are prohibited IN or ON the property. All said dishes need to be removed within 28 days or they will be removed by the managing agent and cost will be billed to me.

Now...........I'm always one for a crusade and to be honest the thoughts of NTL fills me with dread as I'm more than happy with Sky.

So as I see it, after reading the European document, I have a right to receive and view satellite transmissions, without any undue or crazy stipulations.

My dish is attached to the wall of my duplex style appartment, so seeing as I don't OWN that wall, well then maybe the Managing Agent is entitled to ask me to take the dish off said wall.

If I create a free standing structure though and attach my dish to the structure, placing this ON the balcony, then that would become a very grey issue, because as per lease, the balcony is for the exclusive usage of me the leaseholder.

On the issue of the dish being removed by the managing agent or contractors of their choice, well then they would a) be infringing of my agreement with them for exclusive usage of the balcony........de facto invasion of private/personal space and b) be interfering with my personal property (dish) without the authority of the law.

As far as I know, even a landlord CANNOT just show up unannounced to a rental property and demand entrance, so a possibly shady management agent certainly can't.

I'm writing a nice but firm letter to the managing agent tonight and enclosing the EU document for their perusal and see what happens. To be honest, if I can come to an accomodation with them that suits both sides I'll be happy. But if this kicks off from their side well then they might just have picked the wrong monkey.

I suggest you check the legal documents/lease that you signed upon purchasing your duplex, all the rules etc... will be contained in there.

If you have a duplex then you more than likely are only "renting" your duplex on a 999 year lease thus you are only a tenant with the Management Co being the landlord. Again the earlier mentioned rules will let you know what the deal is here but again in my case the Management Co, or it's agents, can enter my duplex at any reasonable time. You cannot stop them entering your property.

If you're thinking of taking a case why don't you contact SKY to see will they bankroll it???