# C_2023083EN.01000901.xml

| 6.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 83/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 83/9

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 9 November 2022 — RTL Belgium SA and RTL BELUX SA & Cie SECS v Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (CSA)

(Case C-692/22)

(2023/C 83/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: RTL Belgium SA, RTL BELUX SA & Cie SECS

Defendant: Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (CSA)

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 1(1)(c) to (f), 2, 3 and 4 of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services, read in the light of the objective of avoiding a situation of double jurisdiction expressed in recitals 34 and 35 of that directive, and Articles 4(3) TEU and 49 TFEU, be interpreted as precluding a regulatory authority, which takes the view that the Member State to which it belongs is that in which the person who ought to be deemed to be the media service provider is established, from imposing a penalty on that person when a first Member States has already taken the view that it has jurisdiction in respect of that audiovisual media service for which it has granted a concession? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 1(1)(c) to (f), 2, 3 and 4 of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services, read in the light of the objective of avoiding a situation of double jurisdiction expressed in recitals 34 and 35 of that directive, and Articles 4(3) TEU and 49 TFEU, be interpreted as precluding a regulatory authority, which takes the view that the Member State to which it belongs is that in which the person who ought to be deemed to be the media service provider is established, from imposing a penalty on that person when a first Member States has already taken the view that it has jurisdiction in respect of that audiovisual media service for which it has granted a concession?

| 2. | Must the principle of sincere cooperation, guaranteed by Article 4(3) TEU (formerly Article 10 TEC), be interpreted as requiring the Member State which intends to exercise jurisdiction over that service, when a first Member State has already exercised jurisdiction, to ask the first Member State to withdraw the concession relating to that audiovisual media service which it has granted and, where it refuses to do so, to bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union by asking the European Union to bring an action against the first Member State for failure to fulfil its obligations (Article 258 TFEU) or itself bring an action for failure to fulfil an obligation (Article 259 TFEU), and to refrain from any physical or legal act which is the expression of its claim to have jurisdiction over that service, unless and until the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled in its favour? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must the principle of sincere cooperation, guaranteed by Article 4(3) TEU (formerly Article 10 TEC), be interpreted as requiring the Member State which intends to exercise jurisdiction over that service, when a first Member State has already exercised jurisdiction, to ask the first Member State to withdraw the concession relating to that audiovisual media service which it has granted and, where it refuses to do so, to bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union by asking the European Union to bring an action against the first Member State for failure to fulfil its obligations (Article 258 TFEU) or itself bring an action for failure to fulfil an obligation (Article 259 TFEU), and to refrain from any physical or legal act which is the expression of its claim to have jurisdiction over that service, unless and until the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled in its favour?

| 3. | Does that principle necessarily mean that the Member State wishing to exercise jurisdiction over an audiovisual media service, when a first Member State already exercises such jurisdiction, should, before adopting any physical or legal act which is the expression of its claim to have jurisdiction with regard to that service, and, irrespective of whether the proceedings referred to in question 2 are initiated,






  (a) | consult the first Member State with a view to reaching, if possible, a joint solution? and/or |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Does that principle necessarily mean that the Member State wishing to exercise jurisdiction over an audiovisual media service, when a first Member State already exercises such jurisdiction, should, before adopting any physical or legal act which is the expression of its claim to have jurisdiction with regard to that service, and, irrespective of whether the proceedings referred to in question 2 are initiated,

(a)

consult the first Member State with a view to reaching, if possible, a joint solution? and/or

| (b) | request that the question be referred to the contact committee established by Article 29 of Directive 2010/13/EU? and/or |
| --- | --- |

(b)

request that the question be referred to the contact committee established by Article 29 of Directive 2010/13/EU? and/or

| (c) | seek the advice of the European Commission? and/or |
| --- | --- |

(c)

seek the advice of the European Commission? and/or

| (d) | invite the first Member State, which granted a concession relating to that audiovisual media service, to withdraw that concession and, where the first Member State refuses to do so, make use of the judicial procedures which are available and effective in that first Member State to challenge that refusal to withdraw the concession? |
| --- | --- |

(d)

invite the first Member State, which granted a concession relating to that audiovisual media service, to withdraw that concession and, where the first Member State refuses to do so, make use of the judicial procedures which are available and effective in that first Member State to challenge that refusal to withdraw the concession?

| 4. | Is the answer to the second and third questions influenced by the fact that the authority responsible for audiovisual regulation has separate legal personality and means of action from the Member State to which it belongs? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the answer to the second and third questions influenced by the fact that the authority responsible for audiovisual regulation has separate legal personality and means of action from the Member State to which it belongs?

| 5. | In a situation where an audiovisual media service is the subject of a concession granted by a first Member State, does Article 344 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU and Directive 2010/13/EU, prohibit a national court of a second Member State from holding that the regulatory authority of that second Member State has correctly assessed that it has jurisdiction to control that service, since in doing so that court would implicitly hold that the first Member State misinterpreted its jurisdiction and would indirectly render a decision in a dispute between two Member States relating to the interpretation and/or application of EU law? In such a situation, should the national court of the second Member State merely annul the decision of that regulatory authority, on the ground that the audiovisual media service in question has already been the subject of a concession granted by a first Member State? |
| --- | --- |

5.

In a situation where an audiovisual media service is the subject of a concession granted by a first Member State, does Article 344 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU and Directive 2010/13/EU, prohibit a national court of a second Member State from holding that the regulatory authority of that second Member State has correctly assessed that it has jurisdiction to control that service, since in doing so that court would implicitly hold that the first Member State misinterpreted its jurisdiction and would indirectly render a decision in a dispute between two Member States relating to the interpretation and/or application of EU law? In such a situation, should the national court of the second Member State merely annul the decision of that regulatory authority, on the ground that the audiovisual media service in question has already been the subject of a concession granted by a first Member State?

---