Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2019:1063
Date: 2019-12-11
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Freedom to provide services;Telecommunications
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Lithuania

Summary C-87/19 — 1 
Case C-87/19 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged:  
7 February 2019  
Referring court:  
Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme 
Administrative Court of Lithuania) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
23 January 2019  
Applicant:  
TV Play Baltic AS 
Defendant:  
Lietuvos radijo ir televizijos komisija 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Annulment of the defendant’s decision not to grant exemption from the 
rebroadcasting obligation; the obligation to carry out certain actions. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Interpretation of Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union. 
Interpretation of Article 2(m) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for 
electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive). 
Interpretation of Article 31(1) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ 
rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-87/19 
 
2  
Service Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009. 
Third paragraph of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Is Article 2(m) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for 
electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) to 
be interpreted as meaning that the ‘provision of an electronic 
communications network’ does not cover activities of television 
rebroadcasting over satellite networks owned by third parties, such as those 
carried out by the applicant? 
2. Is Article 31(1) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating 
to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service 
Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, to be interpreted as 
precluding Member States from imposing a ‘must carry’ obligation (to 
broadcast a television channel over satellite networks owned by third parties 
and to provide access for end-users to that broadcast) on economic 
operators, such as the applicant, which (1) broadcast a television channel 
protected by a conditional access system over satellite networks owned by 
third parties, to that end receiving signals of television programmes 
(channels) broadcast at that time, converting them, encrypting them and 
transmitting them to an artificial Earth satellite from which they are 
uninterruptedly transmitted back to Earth, and (2) offer television channel 
packages to customers, to that end providing access to that protected 
television broadcast (or part thereof) by conditional access devices in return 
for remuneration? 
3. Is Article 31(1) of Directive 2002/22, as amended by Directive 2009/136, to 
be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of the application of that 
provision, a significant number of end-users are not considered to use 
electronic communications networks (in the present case, a satellite 
broadcasting network) as their principal source (means) to receive television 
broadcasts where those networks are used as that principal source (means) 
by only approximately 6% of all end-users (in the present case, households)? 
4. When assessing whether application of Article 31(1) of Directive 2002/22, 
as amended by Directive 2009/136, is justified, is regard to be had to the 
internet users who may, free of charge, view the television programmes in 
question (or part thereof) live online? 
TV PLAY BALTIC 
 
3 
5. Is Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be 
interpreted as precluding Member States from imposing a mandatory 
obligation on economic operators, such as the applicant, to rebroadcast a 
television channel over electronic communications networks free of charge 
where the broadcaster for whose benefit that obligation is laid down is fully 
capable of broadcasting those television channels itself over the same 
network with its own funds? 
6. Is Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be 
interpreted as precluding Member States from imposing a mandatory 
obligation on economic operators, such as the applicant, to rebroadcast a 
television channel over electronic communications networks free of charge 
where that obligation would cover only approximately 6% of all households 
and those households have the possibility of viewing that television channel 
by means of the terrestrial broadcasting network or the internet? 
Provisions of Community law relied on 
Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 
Recitals 2 and 3 of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic 
communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), as 
amended by Directive 2009/140/EC. 
Recital 5 and Article 2(a), (c), (j) and (m) of Directive 2002/21. 
Recitals 44 and 45 and Article 31(1) of Directive 2002/22, as amended by 
Directive 2009/136. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Article 2(34), (58) and (60) of the Lietuvos Respublikos visuomenės informavimo 
įstatymas (Lithuanian Law on the provision of information to the public) (as 
amended by Law No XI-1048 of 30 September 2010). 
Articles 2(58), 30 and 33(5) to (9) of the Lietuvos Respublikos visuomenės 
informavimo įstatymas (Lithuanian Law on the provision of information to the 
public) (as amended by Law No XII-1731 of 21 May 2015). 
Paragraphs 78 and 80 to 83 of the Transliavimo veiklos ir retransliuojamo turinio 
licencijavimo taisyklės (Rules for licensing of broadcasting activities and 
rebroadcast content) approved by Order No ĮV-281 of the Minister of Culture of 
1 April 2011 (as amended by Order No ĮV-659 of 30 September 2015). 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-87/19 
 
4  
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The applicant, TV Play Baltic AS (formerly called Viasat AS), is a company 
registered in Estonia which carries out activities involving distribution of pay 
satellite television channel packages in Lithuania. In carrying out its activities, the 
applicant uses, in return for remuneration, the satellite network (or separate 
network elements) owned by third parties and related services. 
2 Following amendments to the Law on the provision of information to the public 
on 21 May 2015, from 1 October 2015 the applicant’s activities were equated 
under national law to television rebroadcasting activities and, from that date, the 
applicant inter alia became obliged to rebroadcast all unencrypted television 
channels of the public body Lietuvos nacionalinis radijas ir televizija (Lithuanian 
National Radio and Television; also ‘LRT’), including ‘LRT Kultūra’. At this 
stage of consideration of the case, there is no basis for doubting that the applicant 
is to be regarded as an economic operator providing rebroadcasting services under 
national law. 
3 Since LRT refused to bear the costs related to the transmission of the signal of the 
television channel ‘LRT Kultūra’ to an artificial Earth satellite, on 1 October 2015 
the applicant submitted a request to the Lietuvos radijo ir televizijos komisija 
(Radio and Television Commission of Lithuania; ‘the Commission’) for 
exemption from the obligation to rebroadcast that television channel. 
4 By the contested decision, the Commission rejected the applicant’s request. 
5 The applicant brought an action before the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis 
teismas (Vilnius Regional Administrative Court) claiming that it should inter alia: 
annul the Commission’s decision; order the Commission to adopt a new decision 
exempting the applicant from the obligation to rebroadcast the television channel 
‘LRT Kultūra’ (now ‘LRT Plius’) of the public body Lietuvos nacionalinis radijas 
ir televizija; and award the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings. 
6 The defendant (the Commission) and the interested third party (Lietuvos 
nacionalinis radijas ir televizija) contended that the applicant’s action should be 
dismissed. 
7 By judgment of 4 January 2017, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court 
upheld the action of the applicant in part, but it held that the decision of the 
defendant was well founded in so far as the decision rejected the applicant’s 
request for exemption from the obligation to rebroadcast the television channel 
‘LRT Kultūra’ and it dismissed that part of the action. 
8 By its appeal, the applicant requests that the judgment of 4 January 2017 of the 
Vilnius Regional Administrative Court be set aside and a new judgment be 
delivered upholding its action in full and awarding costs. 
TV PLAY BALTIC 
 
5 
Succinct presentation of the reasons for the request for a preliminary ruling 
Application of the Universal Service Directive to the legal relationships at issue 
9 In the present case, the question arises first of all as to whether the obligation 
imposed on the applicant under national law to rebroadcast inter alia the television 
channel ‘LRT Kultūra’ (‘LRT Plius’) falls within the scope of Article 31 of the 
Universal Service Directive. 
10 That article allows Member States to impose reasonable ‘must carry’ obligations 
where such obligations ‘are necessary to meet clearly defined general interest 
objectives’ and requires them to be ‘proportionate and transparent’ (see, for 
example, judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 March 2011, Commission v 
Belgium, C-134/10, paragraph 50). Since, according to the settled case-law of the 
Court of Justice, a cultural policy may constitute an overriding requirement 
relating to the general interest which justifies inter alia a restriction on the 
freedom to provide services (see, to that effect, judgments of the Court of Justice 
of 13 December 2007, United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium and Others, 
C-250/06, paragraph 41, and of 3 March 2011, Commission v Belgium, C-134/10, 
paragraph 44), at this stage of consideration of the case the chamber has no doubt 
that the content of the television channel ‘LRT Kultūra’ (‘LRT Plius’) which is 
granted ‘must carry’ status is essentially intended to attain that general interest 
objective. 
Recognition of the applicant as providing an electronic communications network 
11 In the present case, it is necessary to ascertain in particular that, in circumstances 
such as those in the present case, the applicant is truly not to be regarded as an 
economic operator providing electronic communications networks, as referred to 
in Article 31(1) of the Universal Service Directive. 
12 The ‘provision of an electronic communications network’ referred to in that 
provision is defined in Article 2(m) of the Framework Directive as ‘the 
establishment, operation, control or making available of such a network’. 
13 The ‘electronic communications network’ is itself defined by the EU legislature as 
‘transmission systems and, where applicable, switching or routing equipment and 
other resources, including network elements which are not active, which permit 
the conveyance of signals by wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic means, 
including satellite networks, fixed (circuit- and packet-switched, including 
Internet) and mobile terrestrial networks, electricity cable systems, to the extent 
that they are used for the purpose of transmitting signals, networks used for radio 
and television broadcasting, and cable television networks, irrespective of the type 
of information conveyed’ (Article 2(a) of the Framework Directive). 
14 When carrying out activities of television rebroadcasting (as defined under 
national law), the applicant uses the communications infrastructure owned by 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-87/19 
 
6  
other economic operators which is intended for receiving and encrypting 
television programmes (broadcasts) and transmitting the relevant signals via an 
artificial Earth satellite to terminal equipment where those signals are decrypted. 
In other words, the applicant does not own the electronic communications network 
(or its separate elements); it is not directly involved in the maintenance and 
administration of that network (or its separate elements); the applicant in principle 
uses, in return for remuneration, (satellite) communications networks (or network 
elements) administered and maintained by other persons – including the operator 
of the artificial Earth satellite – for the purpose of transmitting its signals. It could 
be considered, however, that that fact alone does not always refute the assessment 
that an economic operator (in the present case, the applicant) using that 
infrastructure (or separate network elements) is to be regarded as providing an 
electronic communications network for the purposes of Article 2(m) of the 
Framework Directive. 
15 Indeed, as stated in recital 3 of the Access Directive, as amended by Directive 
2009/140, ‘… an operator may own the underlying network or facilities or may 
rent some or all of them’. When providing satellite television services and with a 
view to enabling its customers to view television channels not broadcast over a 
satellite network (the television channel at issue is likewise not broadcast by an 
artificial Earth satellite), the applicant takes care of the appropriate infrastructure 
necessary to transmit signals to the customer’s terminal equipment, that is to say, 
it has to acquire — by concluding contracts with economic operators which 
administer the relevant satellite network elements (equipment) — resources of that 
network, such as leased lines and a ‘spot’ in an artificial Earth satellite, which are 
used exclusively for producing and transmitting the applicant’s signals. This 
suggests that it is that very economic operator which, inter alia, by connecting 
separate network elements, establishes an appropriate transmission system 
intended for receiving, converting, encrypting, transmitting to an artificial Earth 
satellite and broadcasting therefrom to end-users the broadcasts of the television 
channels included in its distributed package. Moreover, by using conditional 
access devices (decoding equipment and code cards provided to end-users), only 
the applicant decides on giving access to the protected television broadcast. 
Therefore, there seems to be a premiss for considering that the applicant’s 
activities related to television rebroadcasting over a satellite network and the 
provision of the possibility for particular customers to receive and decrypt those 
signals by using conditional access devices could be regarded as the provision of 
electronic communications networks for the purposes of the aforesaid provision of 
the Framework Directive. 
16 On the other hand, it may reasonably be inferred that those relationships between 
the applicant and the operators (or administrators) of the satellite network and/or 
its separate elements could essentially be classified as the acquisition of access to 
electronic communications networks inter alia for the purposes of the Access 
Directive, and not the provision of electronic communications networks. Such 
classification of the relevant factual circumstances in the present case would by 
itself give rise to the assessment that the mandatory obligation imposed on the 
TV PLAY BALTIC 
 
7 
applicant under national law to rebroadcast the television channel ‘LRT Kultūra’ 
(‘LRT Plius’) could not be derived from the provision of the Universal Service 
Directive at issue (see, to that effect, judgment of the Court of Justice of 
13 December 2018, Playmédia, C-298/17, paragraph 18). 
17 In the light of the foregoing, the first question is referred to the Court of Justice 
for a preliminary ruling. 
The possibility of imposing ‘must carry’ obligations 
18 In the present case, it may be stated that the applicant’s activities consist partly in 
the conveyance of signals (in ensuring that signals are transmitted) over electronic 
communications networks and in the provision of access for end-users (customers) 
to that signal (protected television broadcast) using conditional access devices; 
those signals (the stream) are transmitted continuously (uninterruptedly), 
irrespective of the number of end-users viewing the relevant television channels at 
that time. 
19 Since the television channel at issue, ‘LRT Kultūra’ (‘LRT Plius’), is not 
broadcast by an artificial Earth satellite, the rebroadcasting obligation in question 
essentially also denotes the applicant’s obligation to ensure that that television 
channel is broadcast over a satellite network. In other words, the obligation at 
issue does not concern the ability of end-users (customers) to view a television 
channel which is already (re)broadcast by an artificial Earth satellite, but inter alia 
the obligation to transmit signals (or ensure that relevant signals are transmitted), 
for example, by including them in the stream. 
20 It is also important to emphasise that, as already mentioned, when rebroadcasting 
television programmes, the applicant does not alter their content; under the 
national regulatory framework, it is prohibited to alter rebroadcast television 
programmes or to insert any other information in those programmes, with the 
exception of the use of special technical measures with a view to ensuring the 
protection of minors or adaptation for the disabled. 
21 Therefore, in circumstances such as those at issue in the present case, the 
obligation to rebroadcast national LRT television channels laid down by national 
law denotes a ‘must carry’ obligation identical to that contained in Article 31(1) of 
the Universal Service Directive. Consequently, if the Court of Justice confirms 
that economic operators such as the applicant fall outside the scope of Article 31 
of the Universal Service Directive, the question arises as to the right of a Member 
State to impose ‘must carry’ obligations on economic operators other than those 
specified in that provision of the directive. 
22 The chamber considers that the fact that the EU legislature imposed the obligation 
contained in Article 31(1) of the Universal Service Directive only on economic 
operators providing electronic communications networks may be interpreted as 
meaning that such obligations cannot be imposed in respect of those activities (or 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-87/19 
 
8  
part thereof) of an economic operator which fall within the regulatory scope of the 
Framework Directive and the Specific Directives. 
23 The view is to be taken that such an assessment cannot be refuted per se by 
paragraph 27 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 December 2018, 
Playmédia (C-298/17), which states that ‘… the Universal Service Directive 
leaves the Member States free to impose “must carry” obligations, outside of 
those covered by Article 31(1) of that directive, in particular on undertakings 
which, without providing electronic communication networks, offer the live 
streaming of television programmes online’. Indeed, it clearly follows from that 
paragraph and from the content of the judgment of the Court of Justice itself that 
such an assessment is made solely on the basis of the analysis of activities related 
to the offer to view directly live television broadcasts online, that is to say, of 
content service, and of the regulatory framework applicable to content services. 
24 However, the Framework Directive as well as the Specific Directives also cover 
electronic communications services, which, for the purposes of the application of 
that legislation, are understood as ‘a service normally provided for remuneration 
which consists wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals on electronic 
communications networks, including telecommunications services and 
transmission services in networks used for broadcasting, but exclude services 
providing, or exercising editorial control over, content transmitted using electronic 
communications networks and services …’ (Article 2(c) of the Framework 
Directive). 
25 In the light of the aforementioned relevant circumstances, it may reasonably be 
inferred that the part of the applicant’s activities in question could be regarded as 
the provision of electronic communications services, falling within the scope of 
the Framework Directive and the Specific Directives, including the Universal 
Service Directive. 
26 On the other hand, from an end-user perspective, the applicant provides services 
entailing the distribution of packages of television programmes (channels) to 
satellite television users, whereas such activities, as explicitly stated in recitals 45 
and 2 of the Universal Service Directive and the Access Directive respectively, 
are to be regarded as a service providing content. Therefore, irrespective of the 
fact that the provision of this service is inextricably linked with the transmission 
(conveyance) of the relevant signal (stream) over satellite networks, which 
transmission or conveyance is arranged by the applicant, while the very activities 
of distribution of television programme packages in principle mean the provision 
of access to the protected television broadcast, it cannot be ruled out that all the 
activities of the applicant could collectively be seen as the provision of the 
aforesaid content services. 
27 As set out in recital 5 of the Framework Directive, a distinction should be made 
between the regulation of transmission and the regulation of content. That recital 
states that the Community regulatory framework does not cover broadcasting 
TV PLAY BALTIC 
 
9 
content. As a consequence, Article 1(3) of the Framework Directive provides that 
that directive as well as the Universal Service Directive are to be without 
prejudice to measures taken at Community or national level, in compliance with 
Community law, to pursue general interest objectives, in particular relating to 
content regulation and audiovisual policy (judgment of the Court of Justice of 
22 December 2008, Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb und Service, C-336/07, 
paragraph 32). 
28 Recital 45 of the Universal Service Directive states that ‘services providing 
content such as the offer for sale of a package of sound or television broadcasting 
content are not covered by the common regulatory framework for electronic 
communications networks and services. Providers of such services should not be 
subject to universal service obligations in respect of these activities …’ 
29 This recital inter alia suggests that the EU legislature not only determined which 
relationships are not covered by the common regulatory framework for electronic 
communications networks and services, but also clearly and explicitly established 
that universal service obligations should not apply to providers of those content 
services. In other words, it may be considered that such obligations which have 
the same content as universal service obligations are not to apply to economic 
operators providing content services. 
30 Universal service means ‘the minimum set of services, defined in [the Universal 
Service Directive], of specified quality which is available to all users regardless of 
their geographical location and, in the light of specific national conditions, at an 
affordable price’ (Article 2(j) of the Framework Directive). The view is to be 
taken that the obligation laid down in Article 31(1) of the Universal Service 
Directive, in so far as it concerns the obligation to ensure and/or carry out the 
transmission (conveyance) of the relevant signal (stream) to an artificial Earth 
satellite and its broadcasting therefrom, could be regarded as universal service 
(thereby ensuring, to a minimum extent, that television broadcasting is made 
available to satellite television users). Consequently, on the basis of recital 45 of 
that directive, such an obligation cannot be imposed on economic operators 
providing content services, such as the offer for sale of packages of television 
broadcasting content. On the other hand, universal service obligations are defined 
in Chapter II (‘Universal service obligations including social obligations’) of the 
Universal Service Directive, which does not refer to ‘must carry’ obligations; 
furthermore, it may reasonably be inferred from the content of the judgment of the 
Court of Justice of 13 December 2018, Playmédia (C-298/17), that, no matter how 
the ‘must carry’ obligation should be fulfilled, that obligation may be imposed on 
any economic operators providing content services, provided that other conditions 
laid down by EU law are met. 
31 In the light of the foregoing, the second question is referred to the Court of Justice 
for a preliminary ruling. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-87/19 
 
10  
The number of end-users 
32 The national regulatory framework relating to the obligation to rebroadcast 
national LRT television channels applies to all rebroadcasters in a uniform 
manner, including, for example, cable (television) network operators providing 
cable television services (in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice cited 
in this request for a preliminary ruling, the latter are certainly to be regarded as 
economic operators providing electronic communications networks, as referred to 
in Article 31(1) of the Universal Service Directive). In the present case, the fact 
that the national legislature itself applies equal treatment towards all 
rebroadcasters (that is to say, both those providing electronic communications 
networks and others) in respect of that obligation means that the content of that 
obligation laid down by national law must be interpreted and applied to all 
rebroadcasters in a uniform manner. In other words, once it is recognised that the 
‘must carry’ obligation imposed by national law, in so far as it applies to 
economic operators (rebroadcasters) referred to in Article 31(1) of the Universal 
Service Directive, is not possible under EU law, this would also give rise to the 
assessment that such an obligation is not possible under national law in respect of 
other broadcasters as well. Therefore, the interpretation of certain provisions of 
the Universal Service Directive is relevant in the present case. 
33 The Court of Justice has held that the ‘must carry’ obligations arising from 
Article 31(1) of the Universal Service Directive may be imposed on operators of 
electronic communications networks only where a significant number of end-users 
use those networks as their principal source (means) to receive radio or television 
broadcasts (see judgments of the Court of Justice of 22 December 2008, Kabel 
Deutschland Vertrieb und Service, C-336/07, paragraph 22, and of 3 March 2011, 
Commission v Belgium, C-134/10, paragraph 73). 
34 Although the Court of Justice has found that this requirement does not apply to 
undertakings which do not come under Article 31(1) of the Universal Service 
Directive (see, for example, judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 December 
2018, Playmédia, C-298/17, paragraph 38), the assessment given in paragraph 32 
with regard to the application of national law to the legal relationships at issue 
implies, in the present case, the necessity to dispel doubts as to which particular 
end-users have to be taken into account in order to determine whether that 
condition is met. 
35 In that regard, on the one hand, when adopting the contested decision, the 
Commission considered whether the applicant’s customers are able to view the 
television channel at issue using their (satellite) equipment and accordingly 
determined that their satellite terminal equipment (technical means) does not 
enable receipt of the television channel ‘LRT Kultūra’ broadcast via the terrestrial 
network. The Commission’s assessment is essentially based on the fact that 
satellite television viewers do not have the technical equipment for receiving 
terrestrial broadcasts. 
TV PLAY BALTIC 
 
11 
36 On the other hand, it is clear from paragraph 23 of the judgment of the Court of 
Justice of 22 December 2008, Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb und Service 
(C-336/07), that this judicial body of the European Union considered that, in the 
main proceedings, the analogue cable network fulfilled the condition in question 
since ‘… in Germany, this method of transmission covers around 57% of 
households and thus constitutes the most widely used means of transmission’. 
This seems to suggest the conclusion that, when assessing whether a significant 
number of end-users use the relevant network as their principal source (means) to 
receive television broadcasts, inter alia for the purposes of Article 31(1) of the 
Universal Service Directive, in the present case the number of end-users of 
television broadcast over satellite networks must be assessed in relation to other 
electronic communications networks (for example, terrestrial television, cable 
television, etc.). 
37 In that regard, it should be noted that, on the basis of the information in the case-
file, the applicant’s services are used by approximately 9% of all pay television 
subscribers and approximately 6% of all households (the applicant is the only 
undertaking providing pay satellite television services in Lithuania). 
38 In the light of the foregoing, the third question is referred to the Court of Justice 
for a preliminary ruling. 
39 It should also be noted that recital 44 of the Universal Service Directive states that 
‘networks used for the distribution of … television broadcasts to the public 
include cable, satellite and terrestrial broadcasting networks. They might also 
include other networks to the extent that a significant number of end-users use 
such networks as their principal means to receive … television broadcasts’. 
40 The television channel ‘LRT Kultūra’ (‘LRT Plius’) is streamed free of charge on 
the LRT website; on that website it is also possible to view individual 
programmes of that television channel at any time. In the fourth quarter of 2015, 
the total number of subscribers to internet access services in Lithuania was 1 187 
100 (cf. pay television subscribers amounting to 724 500, of whom 83 600 were 
the applicant’s subscribers), and in the third quarter of 2018 the total number of 
subscribers was 1 295 500 (pay television subscribers amounted to 677 700, of 
whom 60 800 were the applicant’s subscribers); the average internet speed of end-
users in Lithuania is more than sufficient to view those broadcasts. This gives rise 
to the fourth question referred for a preliminary ruling. 
41 Admittedly, Article 31(1) in Chapter IV (‘End-user interests and rights’) of the 
Universal Service Directive inter alia ensures access for viewers to several 
television channels, irrespective of the technical means they chose to use to 
receive broadcasts. Thus, perhaps the fact that only a small number of end-users 
use the relevant means to receive broadcasts and those users are able to view the 
television channels in question by other means (using terrestrial television 
receivers or the internet) is not significant when ruling on the obligation laid down 
in that provision of the directive. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-87/19 
 
12  
Compliance of the mandatory obligation with Article 56 TFEU 
42 It follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice that any ‘must-carry’ 
obligation of this nature, whether or not it falls within the scope of the Universal 
Service Directive, constitutes a restriction on the freedom to provide services 
within the meaning of Article 56 TFEU (see, for example, judgment of the Court 
of Justice of 13 December 2007, United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium 
and Others, C-250/06, paragraph 38). There is no doubt that, in the light of the 
circumstances of the case, here the obligation placed upon the applicant, which is 
established in another Member State, to rebroadcast the television channel at issue 
over satellite networks is to be recognised as a restriction on that freedom. Such a 
restriction may be justified by overriding cultural-policy reasons in the general 
interest (judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 December 2007, United Pan-
Europe Communications Belgium and Others, C-250/06, paragraphs 41 and 42); 
at this stage of the proceedings, there is no basis for doubting that the obligation 
prescribed in national law to rebroadcast the television channel at issue pursues a 
general interest objective, those obligations are laid down by and directly stem 
from law, and they are clear, mandatory and applicable to all rebroadcasters. 
43 However, the chamber has doubts as to whether the obligation in question may be 
recognised as proportionate and necessary to attain the objectives in question, 
given that there is nothing in the case indicating that LRT (the interested third 
party) is not capable of broadcasting the television channel at issue itself over the 
satellite networks which are used by the applicant’s customers. 
44 Indeed, LRT, like the applicant, is fully capable of renting network resources and 
acquiring related services at similar costs, from the same operators of electronic 
communications networks and their separate elements and the same service 
providers as the applicant. In the present case, this is confirmed by the mere fact 
that LRT itself broadcasts the unencrypted television channel ‘LRT Lituanica’ – 
which can be viewed free of charge both by the applicant’s customers and by 
other satellite television end-users (viewers) – via the same artificial Earth satellite 
which inter alia is also used by the applicant. 
45 In those circumstances, the fifth question is to be referred to the Court of Justice 
for a preliminary ruling. 
46 It should also be noted that the unencrypted television channel ‘LRT Kultūra’ 
(‘LRT Plius’) is broadcast over a terrestrial (television) broadcasting network; 
therefore, upon acquisition and/or use of the equipment necessary for receiving 
DVB-T signals, using appropriate equipment which is not expensive, that 
television channel is in principle also accessible to those households which are 
using the satellite television services provided by the applicant. Moreover, some 
content of the television channel at issue — either direct broadcasts or individual 
programmes viewed subsequently — is accessible online free of charge. 
TV PLAY BALTIC 
 
13 
47 Therefore, in the present case, the sixth question is also referred for a preliminary 
ruling.