61. Notes that in Italy the broadcasting system has been operating in extralegal circumstances for decades, as repeatedly recognised by the Constitutional Court, and in the face of which the efforts of the ordinary legislator and the competent institutions have proved ineffective in re-establishing a legal regime; RAI and Mediaset each continue to control three terrestrial analogue television broadcasters, despite the fact that the Constitutional Court in its judgment No 420 of 1994 has ruled it impermissible for one and the same entity to broadcast over 20% of the television programmes transmitted domestically on terrestrial frequencies (i.e. more than two programmes) and has found the regulatory regime under Law No 223/90 to be contrary ...[+++]to the Italian Constitution, despite being a 'transitional regime'; nor did Law No 249/97 (establishing the Communications Guarantee Authority and rules on telecommunication and radio and television systems) abide by the prescriptions of the Constitutional Court which, in its judgment 466/02, declared the constitutional illegitimacy of Article 3(7) thereof, 'insofar as it does not provide for the establishing of a hard-and-fast deadline, in any event not exceeding 31 December 2003, by which the programmes transmitted by broadcasters exceeding the limits referred to in paragraph 6 of Article 3 must be broadcast exclusively via satellite or via cable';

Consequently, this Directive does not affect the ability of Member States to carry out lawful interception of electronic communications, or take other measures, if necessary for any of these purposes and in accordance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as interpreted by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.

(97) See Joined Cases T-68/89, T-77/89 and T-78/89, SIV and Others v Commission [1992] ECR II-1403, paragraph 358, Case C-393/92 Almelo [1994] ECR I-1477, paragraph 43, Case C-96/94, Centro Servizi Spediporto [1995] ECR I-2883, paragraph 33, Joined Cases C-140/94, 141/94, and C-142/94, DIP, [1995] ECR I-3257, paragraph 62, Case C-70/95, Sodemare [1997] ECR I-3395, paragraph 46, and Joined Cases C-68/94 and C-30/95 France and Others v Commission [1998] ECR I-1375, paragraph 221.

A court in the executing Member State shall decide on whether the European arrest warrant shall be executed after a hearing, held in accordance with the national rules of criminal procedure, which must afford legal safeguards to the defendant :

If the European arrest warrant has been issued on the basis of a judgement in absentia and the issuing Member State fails to produce evidence that the requested person was legally informed that the proceedings had been instituted and that he or she deliberately neglected to appoint a counsel for the defence, a new hearing of the case shall take place in the issuing Member State after the surrender.

[3] See in particular: judgment of 6 December 1989 in Case C-329/88, Commission v Greece [1989] ECR 4159; judgment of 27 November 1990 in Case C-200/88, Commission v Greece [1990] ECR I 4299; judgment of 21 January 1999 in Case C-207/97, Commission v Belgium [1999] ECR I 275; judgment of 25 November 1999 in Case C 212/98 Commission v Ireland [1999] ECR I 8571; Judgment of 6 July 2000 in Case C-236/99, Commission v Kingdom of Belgium , [2000] ECR I-05657. Judgment of 14 May 2002 in Case C-383/00, Commission v Federal Republic of Germany , [2002] ECR I-04219.