Case C-250/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium)) — United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium SA, Coditel Brabant SA, Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision (Brutele), Wolu TV ASBL v État Belge (Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — National legislation requiring cable operators to broadcast programmes transmitted by certain private broadcasters ( must carry ) — Restriction — Overriding reason relating to the general interest — Maintenance of pluralism in a bilingual region)
Date: 2007-12-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: broadcasting, cable distribution, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, television

C 51/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.2.2008

with Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the develop-
ment of the internal market of Community postal services and the
improvement of quality of service, to a public limited company
whose capital is wholly state-owned and which, in that State, is the
provider of the universal postal service.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil
d'État (Belgium)) — United Pan-Europe Communications
Belgium SA, Coditel Brabant SA, Société Intercommunale
pour la Diffusion de la Télévision (Brutele), Wolu TV ASBL
v État Belge

by

amended

2001/78/EC

2) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts,
as
of
Commission Directive
13 September 2001, must be interpreted as precluding legislation
of a Member State that allows public authorities to entrust,
without regard to the rules governing the award of public service
contracts, the provision of non-reserved postal services within the
meaning of Directive 97/67 to a public limited company whose
capital
is the
provider of the universal postal service, in so far as the contracts to
which that legislation applies

is wholly state-owned and which,

in that State,

— reach the relevant threshold as provided for in Article 7(1) of
Directive 92/50, as amended by Directive 2001/78, and

— constitute contracts within the meaning of Article 1(a) of
Directive 92/50, as amended by Directive 2001/78, concluded
in writing for pecuniary interest,

which are matters for the national court to establish.

3) Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC, as well as the principles of
equal treatment, non-discrimination by reason of nationality and
transparency, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a
Member State that allows public authorities to entrust, without
regard to the rules governing the award of public service contracts,
the provision of non-reserved postal services within the meaning of
is
Directive 97/67 to a public limited company whose capital
wholly state-owned and which,
is the provider of
universal postal services, in so far as the contracts to which that
legislation applies

in that State,

— do not

reach the

in
Article 7(1) of Directive 92/50, as amended by Directive
2001/78, and

threshold as provided for

relevant

— do not

in actual

fact constitute a unilateral administrative
measure creating obligations solely for
the
universal postal service and departing significantly from the
that
normal
company,

conditions of a commercial offer made by

the provider of

which are matters for the national court to establish.

(1) OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.

(Case C-250/06) (1)

(Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — National
legislation requiring cable operators to broadcast programmes
transmitted by certain private broadcasters (‘must carry’) —
Restriction — Overriding reason relating to the general
interest — Maintenance of pluralism in a bilingual region)

(2008/C 51/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium SA,
Coditel Brabant SPRL, Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion
de la Télévision (Brutele), Wolu TV ASBL

Defendant: État Belge

Intervening parties: BeTV SA, Tvi SA, Télé Bruxelles ASBL, Belgian
Business Television SA, Media ad Infinitum SA, TV5-Monde,

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État (Belgium)
— Interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 86 EC — Definition of
‘special right’ — Obligation imposed on cabled distribution
companies to distribute television programmes broadcast by
certain broadcasting organisations established mainly in national
territory

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude
legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the
main proceedings, which requires, by virtue of a must-carry obligation,
cable operators providing services on the relevant territory of that State
to broadcast television programmes transmitted by private broadcasters
falling under the public powers of that State and designated by the
latter, where such legislation:

— pursues an aim in the general

interest, such as the retention,
pursuant to the cultural policy of that Member State, of the plur-
alist character of the television programmes available in that terri-
tory, and

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/17

— is not disproportionate in relation to that objective, which means
that the manner in which it is applied must be subject to a trans-
parent procedure based on objective non-discriminatory criteria
known in advance.

It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are
satisfied.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 December
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio
di Stato — Italy) — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e
del Mercato v Ente tabacchi
italiani — ETI SpA, Philip
Morris Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV, Philip
Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. and Philip
Morris International Management SA; and Philip Morris
Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV, Philip Morris
GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. and Philip Morris
International Management SA v Autorità Garante della
Concorrenza e del Mercato, Ente tabacchi italiani — ETI
SpA; and Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris Holland
BV, Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. and
Philip Morris International Management SA v Autorità
Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Amministrazione
autonoma dei monopoli di Stato, Ente tabacchi italiani —
ETI SpA

Respondents: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato,
Ente tabacchi italiani — ETI SpA

Appellants: Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV,
Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. and Philip
Morris International Management SA

Respondents: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato,
autonoma dei monopoli di Stato, Ente
Amministrazione
tabacchi italiani — ETI SpA

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of
Article 81 EC — Agreement concerning the sale price of cigar-
ettes in beach of national anti-trust legislation — Attribution to
the legal person which is the economic successor of an under-
liability in respect of breaches committed by that
taking of
undertaking before its activities were taken over by that
successor

Operative part of the judgment

Article 81 EC et seq. must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case
of entities answering to the same public authority, where conduct
amounting to one and the same infringement of the competition rules
was adopted by one entity and subsequently continued until it ceased
by another entity which succeeded the first, which has not ceased to
exist, that second entity may be penalised for that infringement in its
entirety if it is established that those two entities were subject to the
control of the said authority.

(Case C-280/06) (1)

(1) OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.

(Competition — Imposition of
fines where undertakings
succeed each other — Principle of personal responsibility —
Entities belonging to the same group of undertakings or
answering to the same public authority — National law refer-
ring to Community competition law as source of interpretation
— Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction
of the Court of Justice)

(2008/C 51/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appelant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Respondents: Ente tabacchi
italiani — ETI SpA, Philip Morris
Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV, Philip Morris GmbH,
Philip Morris Products Inc., Philip Morris International Manage-
ment SA

Appellants: Philip Morris Products SA, Philip Morris Holland BV,
Philip Morris GmbH, Philip Morris Products Inc. and Philip
Morris International Management SA

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 Decem-
ber 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Hans-Dieter Jundt, Hedwig
Jundt v Finanzamt Offenburg

(Case C-281/06) (1)

(Freedom to provide services — Secondary teaching activity —
Concept of ‘remuneration’ — Allowances for professional
expenses — Legislation concerning tax exemption — Condi-
tions — Remuneration paid by a national university)

(2008/C 51/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hans-Dieter Jundt, Hedwig Jundt

Defendant: Finanzamt Offenburg