# C_2019131EN.01002701.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 8 February 2019 — Viasat UK Ltd, Viasat Inc. v Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

(Case C-100/19)

(2019/C 131/33)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Viasat UK Ltd, Viasat Inc.

Defendant: Institut belge des services postaux et des télécommunications (IBPT)

Interveners: Inmarsat Ventures Ltd, Eutelsat SA

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Article 4(1)(c)(ii), Article 7(1) and Article 8(1) of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, where it is established that the operator selected in accordance with Title II of that decision has not provided mobile satellite services through a mobile satellite system by the deadline set in Article 4(1)(c)(ii) of the decision, the competent authorities of the Member States referred to in Article 8(1) of the decision must refuse to grant authorisations allowing that operator to deploy complementary ground components on the ground that that operator has failed to honour the commitment given in its application? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Article 4(1)(c)(ii), Article 7(1) and Article 8(1) of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, where it is established that the operator selected in accordance with Title II of that decision has not provided mobile satellite services through a mobile satellite system by the deadline set in Article 4(1)(c)(ii) of the decision, the competent authorities of the Member States referred to in Article 8(1) of the decision must refuse to grant authorisations allowing that operator to deploy complementary ground components on the ground that that operator has failed to honour the commitment given in its application?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the negative, are those same provisions to be interpreted as meaning that, in the context given, the competent authorities of the Member States referred to in Article 8(1) of the decision may refuse to grant authorisations allowing that operator to deploy complementary ground components on the ground that it has not honoured the commitment to provide certain coverage by 13 June 2016? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, are those same provisions to be interpreted as meaning that, in the context given, the competent authorities of the Member States referred to in Article 8(1) of the decision may refuse to grant authorisations allowing that operator to deploy complementary ground components on the ground that it has not honoured the commitment to provide certain coverage by 13 June 2016?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 172, p. 15.

---