CELEX: 62008TJ0055
Language: en
Date: 2011-02-17
Title: Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 February 2011.#Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v European Commission.#Television broadcasting - Article 3a of Directive 89/552/EEC - Measures taken by the United Kingdom concerning events of major importance to United Kingdom society - European Football Championship - Decision declaring the measures compatible with Community law - Statement of reasons - Articles 49 EC and 86 EC - Right to property.#Case T-55/08.

Case T-55/08
      Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA)
      v
      European Commission
      (Television broadcasting – Article 3a of Directive 89/552/EEC – Measures taken by the United Kingdom concerning events of major importance to United Kingdom society – European Football Championship – Decision declaring measures compatible with Community law – Statement of reasons – Articles 49 EC and 86 EC – Right to property)
      Summary of the Judgment
      1.      Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Whether directly concerned
            – Commission decision declaring national measures adopted pursuant to Article 3a of Directive 89/552 compatible with Community
            law – No discretion for Member States – Action brought by the original holder of the broadcasting rights to an event covered
            by that decision – Whether directly concerned
      (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Directive 89/552, Art. 3a; Commission Decision 2007/730)
      2.      Actions for annulment – Natural or legal persons – Measures of direct and individual concern to them – Possibility of being
            individually concerned by a general decision – Conditions – Commission decision declaring national measures adopted pursuant
            to Article 3a of Directive 89/552 compatible with Community law – Action brought by the original holder of the broadcasting
            rights to an event covered by that decision – Applicant identifiable at the time of adoption of that decision – Applicant
            individually concerned
      (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU; Council Directive 89/552, Art. 3a; Commission Decision 2007/730)
      3.      Freedom to provide services – Television broadcasting activities – Directive 89/552 – Possibility for Member States to impose
            restrictions on the exercise of fundamental freedoms established by European Union law – Justification – Guarantee of right
            to information
      (European Parliament and Council Directive 97/36, recitals 18 and 21; Council Directive 89/552, Art. 3a(1))
      4.      Freedom to provide services – Television broadcasting activities – Directive 89/552 – Events of major importance
      (European Parliament and Council Directive 97/36, recital 18; Council Directive 89/552, Art. 3a)
      5.      Freedom to provide services – Television broadcasting activities – Directive 89/552 – National procedures for determining
            events of major importance for society 
      (Council Directive 89/552, Art. 3a(1))
      6.      Freedom to provide services – Television broadcasting activities – Directive 89/552
      (European Parliament and Council Directive 97/36, recital 21; Council Directive 89/552, Art. 3a(1) and (2))
      7.      Freedom to provide services – Television broadcasting activities – Directive 89/552 – Restrictions imposed by a Member State
            justified on grounds of overriding reasons of public interest and in keeping with the principle of proportionality – Indirect
            effects on competition
      (Council Directive 89/552)
      8.      Freedom to provide services – Freedom of establishment – Restrictions – Justification on grounds of overriding reasons of
            public interest – Assessment in the light of general principles of law – Measures infringing fundamental rights not acceptable
      (Arts 46 EC and 55 EC)
      1.      The mechanism of mutual recognition, provided for by Article 3a(3) of Directive 89/552 on the coordination of certain provisions
         laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities,
         triggered by a Commission decision declaring measures taken by a Member State in accordance with Article 3a(1) thereof compatible
         with Community law, creates an obligation for the Member States to safeguard the legal consequences of those measures. The
         Member States must, in particular, ensure that television broadcasters under their jurisdiction comply with the conditions
         which govern the television broadcasting in the Member State in question of the events of major importance for society included
         in the list annexed to that decision, as defined by the Member State in question in its measures which have been approved
         and published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The obligation to achieve that result has a direct adverse effect on the legal position of the television broadcasters under
         the jurisdiction of Member States other than the Member State which adopted the measures and which wishes to purchase broadcasting
         rights for that Member State originally held by the organiser of an event. It follows that such a decision directly affects
         the legal position of organisers of such events in respect of the rights originally held by them and does not leave any discretion
         to the Member States as to the result to be obtained, which is imposed automatically and results from the Community rules
         alone, irrespective of the content of the specific mechanisms which the national authorities put in place to attain that result.
         Such a decision is therefore of direct concern to the organisers.
      
      (see paras 32-35)
      2.      Persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may claim to be individually concerned only if that decision affects
         them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated
         from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed
         by such a decision.
      
      Irrespective of the legal nature and source of the broadcasting rights for the final stage of the European Football Championship
         (EURO), it is an event for the purposes of recital 21 in the preamble to Directive 97/36, amending Directive 89/552 on the
         coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit
         of television broadcasting activities, in that it is organised in advance by an organiser legally empowered to sell those
         rights and that that situation also held true at the time of adoption of Commission Decision 2007/730 on the compatibility
         with Community law of measures taken by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552. The organiser of
         the EURO was perfectly identifiable at the time of adoption of that decision, which is therefore of individual concern to
         it. 
      
      (see paras 36-38)
      3.      Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
         action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities gave concrete expression to the possibility
         for the Member States to restrict the exercise, in the audiovisual field, of fundamental freedoms established by primary Community
         law, on the basis of overriding reasons in the public interest.
      
      Freedom of expression, as protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, is one of the fundamental rights
         guaranteed by the Community legal order and is an overriding reason in the public interest which is capable of justifying
         such restrictions. Under Article 10(1) of the ECHR, freedom of expression also includes the freedom to receive information.
      
      However, as is apparent from recital 18 in the preamble to Directive 97/36 amending Directive 89/552, the measures contemplated
         in Article 3a of Directive 89/552 are intended to protect the right to information and to ensure wide public access to television
         broadcasts of national or non-national events of major importance for society. Recital 21 in the preamble to Directive 97/36
         states that an event is of major importance when it is outstanding, is of interest to the general public in the European Union
         or in a given Member State or in an important component part of a given Member State, and is organised in advance by an event
         organiser who is entitled to sell the rights pertaining to that event.
      
      It follows that, since they relate to events which are of major importance for society, the measures contemplated in Article
         3a(1) of Directive 89/552 are justified by overriding reasons in the public interest. Those measures must also be appropriate
         for attaining the objective which they pursue and not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.
      
      (see paras 44, 47-50)
      4.      Article 3a of Directive 89/552 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action
         in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, to which recital 18 in the preamble to Directive
         97/36 amending Directive 89/552 refers, does not effect a harmonisation of specific events which Member States may consider
         to be of major importance for society. It follows that recital 18 in the preamble to Directive 97/36 cannot be construed as
         meaning that the inclusion of the final stage of the European Football Championship (EURO) in a national list of events of
         major importance for society is automatically compatible with Community law. A fortiori, that recital cannot be understood
         as indicating that the EURO may, in any event, be validly included in its entirety in such a list, irrespective of the interest
         in EURO matches in the Member State concerned.
      
      Even though there is no harmonisation of specific events which a Member State may consider to be of major importance for its
         society, the reference to the EURO in recital 18 in the preamble to Directive 97/36 means that the Commission cannot consider
         the inclusion of EURO matches in a list of events to be contrary to Community law on the ground that the Member State concerned
         did not notify it of the specific reasons justifying their importance for society. However, any finding by the Commission
         that the inclusion of the entire EURO in a list of events of major importance for the society of a Member State is compatible
         with Community law, on the ground that the EURO is, by its nature, legitimately regarded as a single event, may be called
         into question on the basis of specific factors showing that the ‘non‑prime’ matches are not of such importance for the society
         of that Member State.
      
      (see paras 51-52, 120)
      
      5.      The procedures put in place by the Member States under Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552 on the coordination of certain provisions
         laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities
         for adopting the list of events of major importance for society must be clear and transparent, in the sense that they must
         be based on objective criteria which are known in advance by the parties concerned, so as to prevent the Member States’ discretion
         for deciding on the specific events to include in their lists from being exercised in an arbitrary manner. Although it is
         true that, under Article 3a of Directive 89/552, in order for an event to be included in the list it must be of major importance
         for society, the fact remains that the prior establishment of specific criteria used to assess that importance is an essential
         factor in order for national decisions to be adopted in a transparent manner and within the parameters of the discretion which
         the national authorities have in that regard. The requirement of clarity and transparency of the procedure also implies that
         the relevant provisions indicate the body which is responsible for drawing up the list of events and the conditions in which
         interested parties may submit their observations.
      
      However, Article 3a(1) does not require Member States to provide for separate procedures for establishing each of the categories
         in which they have found it appropriate to classify events of major importance for their society. The fact that there is a
         single procedure for drawing up the list in question as a whole does in itself not affect the clarity and transparency of
         the procedure.
      
       (see paras 90-91, 100)
      6.      In providing that it is for the Member States to define which events are of major importance for their society within the
         meaning specified in recital 21 in the preamble to Directive 97/36 amending Directive 89/552, Article 3a of Directive 89/552
         on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning
         the pursuit of television broadcasting activities leaves the Member States considerable discretion in that regard.
      
      When an event is of major importance for the society of a Member State, the Commission does not infringe the principle of
         equal treatment if, in the review it carries out pursuant to Article 3a(2) of Directive 89/552, it does not oppose its inclusion
         in the list drawn up by the Member State in question on the ground that another event, of possibly even greater importance
         for that society, is not included. 
      
      Where a selection is made from among a number of specific events of major importance for society within the meaning of Directive
         97/36, the Member States may not be required, directly or indirectly, to include in their lists events other than the ones
         they choose to include, or to derogate from the rules of the Treaty any more than they wish to do. 
      
      (see paras 119, 194-195)
      7.      The consequences resulting from the fact that, in the light of the importance of the exclusivity of broadcasting rights for
         the final stage of the European Football Championship (EURO) matches for those broadcasters coming within the second category
         established by the legislation of a Member State, the latter will not be interested in acquiring non-exclusive rights, result
         indirectly from the restrictions on freedom to provide services introduced by the measures of the Member State in question.
         Yet restrictions on freedom to provide services resulting from the inclusion of all EURO matches in the list of events of
         major importance for the society of that Member State are justified by overriding reasons in the public interest and are neither
         inappropriate nor disproportionate. The effects on the number of potential competitors, which are presented as being an unavoidable
         consequence of those obstacles to the freedom to provide services, cannot, therefore, be considered to be contrary to the
         Treaty articles on competition. In those circumstances, the Commission does not have to conduct a more in-depth analysis of
         those consequences. 
      
      (see paras 163-164)
      8.      Where a Member State relies on provisions such as Articles 46 EC and 55 EC in order to justify rules which are liable to obstruct
         the exercise of the freedom to provide services or the freedom of establishment, such justification, provided for by Community
         law, must be interpreted in the light of the general principles of law and in particular of fundamental rights. Thus the national
         rules in question can fall under the exceptions provided for by those provisions only if they are compatible with the fundamental
         rights the observance of which is ensured by the Community judicature. Similarly, it cannot be accepted that a national measure
         which is not compatible with fundamental rights, such as the right to property, may fall under the exceptions recognised on
         the basis that the measure reflects an overriding reason in the public interest, such as television access for the general
         public to events of major importance for society.
      
      (see para. 179)
JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
      17 February 2011 (*)
      
      (Television broadcasting – Article 3a of Directive 89/552/EEC – Measures taken by the United Kingdom concerning events of major importance to United Kingdom society – European Football Championship – Decision declaring the measures compatible with Community law – Statement of reasons – Articles 49 EC and 86 EC – Right to property)
      In Case T‑55/08,
      Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA), established in Nyon (Switzerland), represented by A. Bell, K. Learoyd, Solicitors, D. Anderson QC and B. Keane, Solicitor,
      
      applicant,
      v
      European Commission, represented by F. Benyon and E. Montaguti, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Flynn QC and M. Lester, Barrister,
      
      defendant,
      supported by
      Kingdom of Belgium, represented by C. Pochet, acting as Agent, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer,
      
      and by
      United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer and V. Jackson, and subsequently by S. Behzadi-Spencer and L. Seeboruth, acting
         as Agents, assisted by T. de la Mare and B. Kennelly, Barristers,
      
      interveners,
      APPLICATION for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2007/730/EC of 16 October 2007 on the compatibility with Community
         law of measures taken by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on
         the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the
         pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 2007 L 295, p. 12),
      
      THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber),
      composed of N.J. Forwood (Rapporteur), President, L. Truchot and J. Schwarcz, Judges,
      Registrar: K. Pocheć, Administrator,
      having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 24 February 2010,
      gives the following
      Judgment
       Legal context
      1        The first paragraph of Article 49 EC is worded as follows:
      
      ‘Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Community shall
         be prohibited in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a State of the Community other than that of
         the person for whom the services are intended.’
      
      2        Article 86(1) EC provides: ‘[i]n the case of public undertakings and undertakings to which Member States grant special or
         exclusive rights, Member States shall neither enact nor maintain in force any measure contrary to the rules contained in this
         Treaty, in particular to those rules provided for in Article 12 [EC] and Articles 81 [EC] to 89 [EC].’
      
      3        Article 3a of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation
         or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23),
         as inserted by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council [Directive
         89/552] (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60), provides:
      
      ‘1.      Each Member State may take measures in accordance with Community law to ensure that broadcasters under its jurisdiction do
         not broadcast on an exclusive basis events which are regarded by that Member State as being of major importance for society
         in such a way as to deprive a substantial proportion of the public in that Member State of the possibility of following such
         events via live coverage or deferred coverage on free television. If it does so, the Member State concerned shall draw up
         a list of designated events, national or non-national, which it considers to be of major importance for society. It shall
         do so in a clear and transparent manner in due and effective time. In so doing the Member State concerned shall also determine
         whether these events should be available via whole or partial live coverage, or where necessary or appropriate for objective
         reasons in the public interest, whole or partial deferred coverage.
      
      2.      Member States shall immediately notify to the Commission any measures taken or to be taken pursuant to paragraph 1. Within
         a period of three months from the notification, the Commission shall verify that such measures are compatible with Community
         law and communicate them to the other Member States. It shall seek the opinion of the Committee established pursuant to Article
         23a. It shall forthwith publish the measures taken in the Official Journal of the European Communities and at least once a year the consolidated list of the measures taken by Member States.
      
      3.      Member States shall ensure, by appropriate means, within the framework of their legislation that broadcasters under their
         jurisdiction do not exercise the exclusive rights purchased by those broadcasters following the date of publication of this
         Directive in such a way that a substantial proportion of the public in another Member State is deprived of the possibility
         of following events which are designated by that other State in accordance with the preceding paragraphs via whole or partial
         live coverage or, where necessary or appropriate for objective reasons in the public interest, whole or partial deferred coverage
         on free television as determined by that other Member State in accordance with paragraph 1.’
      
      4        Recitals 18 to 22 of Directive 97/36 are worded as follows:
      
      ‘(18) Whereas it is essential that Member States should be able to take measures to protect the right to information and to ensure
         wide access by the public to television coverage of national or non-national events of major importance for society, such
         as the Olympic games, the football World Cup and European football championship; whereas to this end Member States retain
         the right to take measures compatible with Community law aimed at regulating the exercise by broadcasters under their jurisdiction
         of exclusive broadcasting rights to such events;
      
      (19)      Whereas it is necessary to make arrangements within a Community framework, in order to avoid potential legal uncertainty and
         market distortions and to reconcile free circulation of television services with the need to prevent the possibility of circumvention
         of national measures protecting a legitimate general interest;
      
      (20)      Whereas, in particular, it is appropriate to lay down in this Directive provisions concerning the exercise by broadcasters
         of exclusive broadcasting rights that they may have purchased to events considered to be of major importance for society in
         a Member State other than that having jurisdiction over the broadcasters, …;
      
      (21)      Whereas events of major importance for society should, for the purposes of this Directive, meet certain criteria, that is
         to say be outstanding events which are of interest to the general public in the European Union or in a given Member State
         or in an important component part of a given Member State and are organised in advance by an event organiser who is legally
         entitled to sell the rights pertaining to that event;
      
      (22)      Whereas, for the purposes of this Directive, “free television” means broadcasting on a channel, either public or commercial,
         of programmes which are accessible to the public without payment in addition to the modes of funding of broadcasting that
         are widely prevailing in each Member State (such as licence fee and/or the basic tier subscription fee to a cable network)’.
      
       Background to the case and contested decision
      5        The applicant, the Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA), is the governing body for European football. Its
         core mission is to safeguard the development of European football and it organises a number of international football competitions,
         including the final stage of the European Football Championship (‘the EURO’), in which 16 national teams play each other once
         every four years in a total of 31 matches. It is the revenues generated by the sale of the commercial rights associated with
         those competitions that enable the applicant to promote the development of European football. UEFA states that 64% of the
         revenue generated by the sale of the commercial rights relating to the EURO come from the sale of television broadcasting
         rights for the matches.
      
      6        By decision of 25 June 1998, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
         Northern Ireland (‘the Secretary of State’), acting pursuant to Part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996, drew up a list of events
         of major importance for United Kingdom society, including the EURO.
      
      7        The adoption of that list was preceded by a consultation of 42 different bodies launched by the Secretary of State in July
         1997 concerning the criteria in the light of which the importance of various events for United Kingdom society was to be assessed.
         That procedure led to the adoption of a list of criteria contained in a document from the Ministry of Culture, Media and Sports
         dated November 1997, which the Secretary of State was to apply for the purpose of drawing up a list of events of major importance
         for United Kingdom society. According to that document, an event is particularly liable to be included in the list when it
         has a special national resonance, not simply a significance to those who ordinarily follow the sport concerned. According
         to that same document, in order to qualify as such, a national or international sport must be pre-eminent or involve the national
         team or athletes from the United Kingdom. Of the events which fulfil those criteria, those which command large television
         audiences or which are traditionally broadcast live on free television channels stand a greater chance of being included in
         the list. For the purposes of the assessment, the Secretary of State also takes into account other factors relating to the
         consequences for the sport concerned, such as the suitability of live broadcasting of an event in its entirety, the impact
         on income for the sport in question, the consequences for the broadcasting market and whether there are arrangements to ensure
         that access to the event is available by means of delayed coverage or radio commentary.
      
      8        Subsequently, the Secretary of State launched a consultation procedure pursuant to section 97 of the Broadcasting Act 1996
         concerning which specific events to include in the list. During that consultation procedure, the Secretary of State sought
         the views of a number of bodies and interested parties and of holders of television broadcasting rights, such as UEFA. Moreover,
         the Advisory Group on listed events, established by the Secretary of State, delivered its opinion on the events to be included,
         proposing with respect to the EURO the inclusion of the final, the semi-finals and matches involving the national teams of
         the United Kingdom.
      
      9        Under section 98 of the Broadcasting Act 1996, as amended by the Television Broadcasting Regulations 2000, broadcasters are
         divided into two categories. The first category includes broadcasters providing a free service which, in addition, can be
         received by at least 95% of the population of the United Kingdom. The second category includes broadcasters which do not fulfil
         those conditions.
      
      10      Moreover, under section 101 of the Broadcasting Act 1996, as amended by the Television Broadcasting Regulations 2000, a television
         programme provider coming within one of those categories can broadcast live all or part of an event included in the list only
         if a provider coming within the other category can broadcast live, in whole or in part, the same event in the same, or essentially
         the same, region. If that condition is not fulfilled, a broadcaster wishing to broadcast all or part of the event in question
         must obtain prior authorisation from the Office of Communications.
      
      11      According to section 3 of the Code on Sports and Other Listed and Designated Events, as in force in 2000, the events included
         in the list of events of major importance for society are divided into two groups. ‘Group A’ includes events which cannot
         be covered live on an exclusive basis if certain criteria are not met. ‘Group B’ includes events which may be broadcast live
         on an exclusive basis only if arrangements have been made to ensure deferred broadcast.
      
      12      Under section 13 of the Code on Sports and Other Listed and Designated Events, an authorisation may be granted by the Office
         of Communications for listed ‘Group A’ events, which includes the EURO, where the relevant broadcasting rights have been openly
         offered on equitable and reasonable terms to all television broadcasting bodies and no body in the other category has expressed
         its interest in acquiring them.
      
      13      By letter of 25 September 1998, the United Kingdom provided the Commission of the European Communities with the list of events
         drawn up by the Secretary of State, as required by Article 3a(2) of Directive 89/552. Following an exchange of correspondence
         between the United Kingdom and the Commission and a fresh notification of measures on 5 May 2000, the Director-General of
         the Directorate-General (DG) Education and Culture informed the United Kingdom, by letter of 28 July 2000, that the Commission
         would not raise objections to the United Kingdom measures, which would, accordingly, be published shortly thereafter in the
         Official Journal of the European Communities.
      
      14      By judgment of 15 December 2005 in Case T‑33/01 Infront WM v Commission [2005] ECR II‑5897, this Court annulled the decision contained in the letter of 28 July 2000, on the ground that it constituted
         a formal decision within the meaning of Article 249 EC that the College of Commissioners itself ought to have adopted (Infront WM v Commission, paragraph 178).
      
      15      Following the judgment in Infront WM v Commission, paragraph 14 above, the Commission adopted Decision 2007/730/EC on the compatibility with Community law of measures taken
         by the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 3a(1) of [Directive 89/552] (OJ 2007 L 295, p. 12) (‘the contested decision’).
      
      16      The operative part of the contested decision reads as follows:
      
      ‘Article 1
      The measures taken pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Directive [89/552] and notified by the United Kingdom to the Commission on
         5 May 2000, as published in the Official Journal of the European Communities C 328 of 18 November 2000, are compatible with Community law.
      
      Article 2
      The measures, as set out in the Annex to this Decision, shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union in accordance with Article 3a(2) of Directive [89/552].’ 
      
      17      The statement of reasons for the contested decision includes the following recitals:
      
      ‘(4)      The list of events of major importance for society included in the [United Kingdom] measures was drawn up in a clear and transparent
         manner and a far-reaching consultation had been launched in the [United Kingdom]. 
      
      (5)      The Commission was satisfied that the events listed in the [United Kingdom] measures met at least two of the following criteria
         considered to be reliable indicators of the importance of events for society: (i) a special general resonance within the Member
         State, and not simply a significance to those who ordinarily follow the sport or activity concerned; (ii) a generally recognised,
         distinct cultural importance for the population in the Member State, in particular as a catalyst of cultural identity; (iii)
         involvement of the national team in the event concerned in the context of a competition or tournament of international importance;
         and (iv) the fact that the event has traditionally been broadcast on free television and has commanded large television audiences.
      
      (6)      A significant number of the events listed in the [United Kingdom] measures, including the summer and winter Olympic Games
         as well as the World Cup Finals and the European Championship Finals tournaments, fall within the category of events traditionally
         considered to be of major importance for society, as referred to explicitly in recital 18 of Directive [97/36]. These events
         have a special general resonance in the [United Kingdom] in their entirety, as they are particularly popular with the general
         public (irrespective of the nationality of the participants), not just with those who usually follow sports events.
      
      …
      (18)      The listed events, including those to be considered as a whole and not as a series of individual events, have traditionally
         been broadcast on free television and have commanded large television audiences. … 
      
      (19)      The [United Kingdom] measures appear proportionate so as to justify a derogation from the fundamental EC Treaty freedom to
         provide services on the basis of an overriding reason of public interest, which is to ensure wide public access to broadcasts
         of events of major importance for society.
      
      (20)      The [United Kingdom] measures are compatible with [the EC Treaty] competition rules in that the definition of qualified broadcasters
         for the broadcasting of listed events is based on objective criteria that allow actual and potential competition for the acquisition
         of the rights to broadcast these events. In addition, the number of listed events is not disproportionate so as to distort
         competition on the downstream free television and pay television markets.
      
      (21)      The proportionality of the [United Kingdom] measures is reinforced by the fact that a number of the events listed require
         adequate secondary coverage only. 
      
      …
      (24)      It follows from the judgment [in Infront WM v Commission] that the declaration that measures taken pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Directive [89/552] are compatible with Community law
         constitutes a decision, which must therefore be adopted by the Commission. Accordingly, it is necessary to declare by this
         Decision that the measures notified by the [United Kingdom] are compatible with Community law. The measures, as set out in
         the Annex to this Decision, should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union in accordance with Article 3a(2) of Directive [89/552].’
      
       Procedure and forms of order sought
      18      By document lodged at the Registry of the Court on 5 February 2008, UEFA brought the present action.
      
      19      UEFA asked the Court to invite the Commission, by way of measures of organisation of procedure, to produce a number of documents
         which, in its view, would assist in the efficient conduct of the written proceedings, the clarification of the issues in dispute
         and the judicial review which the Court is called upon to conduct.
      
      20      By documents lodged at the Court Registry on 11 and 16 June 2008, the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Belgium applied for
         leave to intervene in the present proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.
      
      21      By order of 29 September 2008, the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court granted those parties leave to intervene.
         The interveners lodged their statements in intervention and UEFA lodged its observations on those statements within the prescribed
         time-limit.
      
      22      Acting on a report of the Judge-Rapporteur, the Court decided to open the oral procedure and, by way of measures of organisation
         of procedure, put one question to UEFA and two to the Commission. The Court’s questions were replied to within the prescribed
         time-limit.
      
      23      UEFA claims that the Court should:
      
      –        annul the contested decision in so far as it approves, for Community law purposes, the inclusion of the EURO in its entirety
         in the national list of the United Kingdom; 
      
      –        order the Commission to pay the costs.
      24      The Commission contends that the Court should:
      
      –        dismiss the action;
      –        order UEFA to pay the costs.
      25      The Kingdom of Belgium and the United Kingdom contend that the Court should dismiss the action.
      
       Law
       Admissibility
       Arguments of the parties
      26      The Kingdom of Belgium submits that the action is inadmissible on the grounds that the contested decision is not of direct
         or individual concern to UEFA and that the Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the lawfulness of national measures. Nor did
         UEFA bring any action against the national measures before the national courts, so that its action before the Court was brought
         out of time, as any annulment of the contested decision will not affect the validity of the national legislation at issue.
      
      27      UEFA submits that the contested decision is of direct and individual concern to it.
      
       Findings of the Court
      28      The grounds of inadmissibility put forward by the Kingdom of Belgium raise a matter of public policy, since they involve UEFA’s
         legal standing to bring proceedings, compliance with the time-limit and the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court should therefore
         examine those pleas of inadmissibility of its own motion, even though, under the fourth paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute
         of the Court of Justice and Article 116(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the Kingdom of Belgium, as intervener,
         does not have standing to raise the issue as the Commission does not dispute the admissibility of the action (see, to that
         effect and by analogy, Case C‑313/90 CIRFS and Others v Commission [1993] ECR I‑1125, paragraphs 21 to 23).
      
      29      With respect to the issue whether UEFA is directly concerned, it must be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law,
         the condition that the decision must be of direct concern to a natural or legal person, as laid down in the fourth paragraph
         of Article 230 EC, requires the contested Community measure to affect directly the legal situation of the individual and leave
         no discretion to its addressees, who are entrusted with the task of implementing it, such implementation being purely automatic
         and resulting from Community rules without the application of other intermediate rules (see Case C‑125/06 P Commission v Infront WM [2008] ECR I‑1451, paragraph 47, and the case-law cited).
      
      30      In that regard, under section 101 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 (see paragraph 10 above), no television broadcaster coming
         within one of the categories described in paragraph 9 above may broadcast, live and on an exclusive basis, an event included
         in the United Kingdom list. It is only if no broadcaster in the other category has shown any interest in acquiring the broadcast
         rights for that event and if the other conditions referred to in paragraph 12 above are fulfilled that the Office of Communications
         may give authorisation to a broadcaster having acquired the exclusive rights to broadcast the event in question live.
      
      31      It follows from those rules that the sale of exclusive broadcasting rights for the EURO, of which UEFA is the organiser within
         the meaning of recital 21 in the preamble to Directive 97/36, to television broadcasters under the jurisdiction of the United
         Kingdom in a manner which deprives other broadcasters coming under the jurisdiction of that same Member State which have manifested
         an interest in acquiring those rights of the possibility of broadcasting all or part of that event in that country does not
         produce the legal effects normally resulting from such an exclusivity clause.
      
      32      Although, admittedly, those legal consequences arise from the United Kingdom legislation and not from the contested decision,
         the fact remains that the mechanism of mutual recognition triggered by the latter, in accordance with Article 3a(3) of Directive
         89/552, creates an obligation for the Member States to safeguard those consequences. The Member States must, in particular,
         ensure that television broadcasters coming under their jurisdiction comply with the conditions which govern the broadcasting
         on United Kingdom television of the events included in the consolidated list annexed to the contested decision and are defined
         by the United Kingdom in its measures which have been approved and published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The obligation to achieve that result has a direct adverse effect on the legal position of the television broadcasters under
         the jurisdiction of Member States other than the United Kingdom wishing to purchase broadcasting rights for the United Kingdom
         originally held by UEFA (see, to that effect, Commission v Infront WM, paragraph 29 above, paragraphs 62 and 63).
      
      33      Therefore, the mechanism of mutual recognition triggered by the contested decision obliges the Member States to preclude the
         exercise of rights such as those described in paragraph 31 above by television broadcasters under their jurisdiction, with
         the result that the rights originally held by UEFA are also affected when they are offered publicly to broadcasters not under
         the United Kingdom’s jurisdiction, but rather that of another Member State.
      
      34      It follows that the contested decision directly affects UEFA’s legal position in respect of the rights originally held by
         it and does not leave any discretion to the Member States as to the result to be obtained, which is imposed automatically
         and results from the Community rules alone, irrespective of the content of the specific mechanisms which the national authorities
         put in place to attain that result (see, to that effect, Commission v Infront WM, paragraph 29 above, paragraphs 60 and 61).
      
      35      The contested decision is therefore of direct concern to UEFA.
      
      36      Regarding the question whether UEFA is individually concerned by the contested decision, it should be remembered that persons
         other than those to whom a decision is addressed may claim to be individually concerned only if that decision affects them
         by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated
         from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed
         by such a decision (see Commission v Infront WM, paragraph 29 above, paragraph 70, and the case-law cited).
      
      37      In the present case, it is not disputed that, irrespective of the legal nature and source of the broadcasting rights for the
         EURO, the latter is an event for the purposes of recital 21 in the preamble to Directive 97/36 in that it is organised in
         advance by an organiser legally empowered to sell those rights and that UEFA is the organiser in question. Since that situation
         also held true at the time of adoption of the contested decision, UEFA was perfectly identifiable at that time.
      
      38      The contested decision is therefore of individual concern to UEFA.
      
      39      With respect to the Kingdom of Belgium’s argument that the Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the lawfulness of national
         measures under Article 230 EC and that UEFA did not challenge the United Kingdom measures before the national courts, suffice
         it to state that, by its action, UEFA is challenging, inter alia, the lawfulness of Article 1 of the contested decision, according
         to which the United Kingdom measures are compatible with Community law.
      
      40      It follows that the review which the Court is being asked to conduct in the present case relates to the lawfulness of that
         finding, so that the failure to challenge the United Kingdom measures before the national courts does not affect, in one way
         or other, the admissibility of the action, which, moreover, was lodged within the time-limit laid down in Article 230 EC (see,
         to that effect, Case T‑33/01 Infront WM v Commission, paragraph 14 above, paragraph 109).
      
      41      The arguments alleging inadmissibility of the action put forward by the Kingdom of Belgium must, accordingly, be rejected.
      
       Substance
      42      UEFA puts forward eight pleas in law: first, infringement of Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552; second, failure to state reasons;
         third, infringement of Article 3a(2) of Directive 89/552; fourth, infringement of the Treaty provisions on competition; fifth,
         infringement of the Treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services; sixth, infringement of UEFA’s property rights; seventh,
         infringement of the principle of proportionality; and, eighth, infringement of the principle of equal treatment.
      
      43      Before examining the pleas put forward by UEFA, it is appropriate to set out a number of general considerations which must
         be taken into account in determining whether they are well founded.
      
      44      First of all, it should be noted that Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552 gave concrete expression to the possibility for the
         Member States to restrict the exercise, in the audiovisual field, of fundamental freedoms established by primary Community
         law, on the basis of overriding reasons in the public interest.
      
      45      Even if measures adopted by Member States pursuant to Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552 apply in a non-discriminatory manner
         both to undertakings established in their national territory and to undertakings established in other Member States, it is
         sufficient that those measures benefit certain undertakings established in that national territory in order to be considered
         a restriction on freedom to provide services within the meaning of Article 49 EC (see, to that effect, Case C‑398/95 SETTG [1997] ECR I‑3091, paragraph 16, and Case C‑250/06 United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium and Others [2007] ECR I‑11135, paragraphs 37 and 38).
      
      46      Such restrictions on the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty may yet be justified, provided they serve overriding
         reasons in the public interest, are appropriate for attaining the objective which they pursue and do not go beyond what is
         necessary in order to attain it (see, to that effect, United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium and Others, paragraph 45 above, paragraph 39, and the case-law cited).
      
      47      In that regard, it must be borne in mind that freedom of expression, as protected by Article 10 of the Convention for the
         Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’), is one of the fundamental
         rights guaranteed by the Community legal order and is an overriding reason in the public interest which is capable of justifying
         such restrictions (see, to that effect, United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium and Others, paragraph 45 above, paragraph 41, and the case-law cited). Moreover, under Article 10(1) of the ECHR, freedom of expression
         also includes the freedom to receive information.
      
      48      In the present case, as noted in recital 19 of the contested decision, the measures adopted by the United Kingdom are obstacles
         to freedom to provide services. However, as is apparent from recital 18 in the preamble to Directive 97/36, the measures contemplated
         in Article 3a of Directive 89/552 are intended to protect the right to information and to ensure wide public access to television
         broadcasts of national or non-national events of major importance for society. Recital 21 in the preamble to Directive 97/36
         states that an event is of major importance when it is outstanding, is of interest to the general public in the European Union
         or in a given Member State or in an important component part of a given Member State, and is organised in advance by an event
         organiser who is entitled to sell the rights pertaining to that event.
      
      49      It follows that, since they relate to events which are of major importance for society, the measures contemplated in Article
         3a(1) of Directive 89/552 are justified by overriding reasons in the public interest.
      
      50      Next, as noted in paragraph 46 above, the measures in question must still be appropriate for attaining the objective which
         they pursue and not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.
      
      51      Lastly, regarding the scope of recital 18 in the preamble to Directive 97/36, it should be noted, first, that Article 3a of
         Directive 89/552, to which that recital refers, does not effect a harmonisation of specific events which Member States may
         consider to be of major importance for society. Contrary to the version of that article which appears in the decision of the
         European Parliament on the common position adopted by the Council with a view to the adoption of Directive 97/36 (OJ 1996
         C 362, p. 56) and which makes express reference to the summer and winter Olympic Games and to the football World Cup and European
         Championship, the said provision does not refer to specific events which are liable to be included in national lists.
      
      52      It follows that recital 18 in the preamble to Directive 97/36 cannot be construed as meaning that the inclusion of the EURO
         in a national list of events of major importance for society is automatically compatible with Community law. A fortiori, that recital cannot be understood as indicating that the EURO may, in any event, be validly included in its entirety in
         such a list, irrespective of the interest in EURO matches in the Member State concerned.
      
      53      On the other hand, in the light of the findings set out in paragraphs 44 to 49 above, that recital implies that, when a Member
         State includes EURO matches in the list it has decided to draw up, it does not need to include in its notification to the
         Commission specific grounds concerning their nature as an event of major importance for society.
      
      54      It is in the light of those considerations that the merits of the pleas put forward by UEFA fall to be examined.
      
      55      Lastly, since in its second plea, put forward in the reply, UEFA alleges a failure to state reasons in respect of the Commission’s
         assessment relating to the clarity and transparency in the procedure established in the United Kingdom, the Court will first
         examine that plea before turning to the first plea, which questions the merits of that assessment. The Court will furthermore
         examine the fifth plea in law before turning its attention to the fourth plea.
      
       The second plea: failure to state reasons
      –       Arguments of the parties
      56      UEFA argues that the contested decision does not contain a proper statement of reasons, and the Court is therefore unable
         to review its legality. Since it introduced restrictions on the freedom to provide services, competition and property rights,
         the contested decision ought to have contained a detailed statement of reasons. Nor does the contested decision contain a
         proper statement of reasons concerning the clarity and transparency of the procedure followed in the United Kingdom or the
         freedom to provide services and competition law.
      
      57      It is clear from the terms of the contested decision that the Commission did not take into account any developments which
         had taken place since 2000, so that it did not have before it the necessary information to adopt a properly reasoned decision
         in 2007. The audience viewing figures for the 2000 and 2004 EURO show that matches not involving a national team of the United
         Kingdom attracted only a third as many television viewers as matches involving a United Kingdom national team. By failing
         to gather information about any change in circumstances following the judgment in Infront WM v Commission, paragraph 14 above, which necessitated the adoption of a decision on the United Kingdom list, the Commission also infringed
         the principle of good administration. Moreover, that judgment did not endorse the assessment in the letter of 28 July 2000
         (see paragraphs 13 and 14 above) regarding the compatibility of the United Kingdom list with Community law.
      
      58      Yet the Commission merely converted the letter of 28 July 2000 into a decision, without carrying out a more in-depth analysis
         than the cursory analysis it did, according to its own statements before the Court, in the case which led to the judgment
         in Infront WM v Commission, paragraph 14 above. That failure to carry out a detailed investigation inevitably led to an infringement of the obligation
         to state reasons and to manifest errors of assessment in terms of the freedom to provide services and competition law.
      
      59      In that regard, UEFA argues that the restriction on freedom to provide services is justified by a mere reference to televised
         access to events of major importance for society, which is merely a reference to Article 3a of Directive 89/552 without any
         explanation of the elements of fact and law justifying that derogation from a fundamental provision of the Treaty. Moreover,
         as regards competition law, the contested decision does not even attempt to define the relevant markets.
      
      60      Lastly, UEFA argues that the Commission ought to have given specific reasons for its choice to follow a different approach
         from that used in respect of those Member States which included only certain EURO matches in their lists.
      
      61      The Commission, supported by the interveners, disputes the merits of this plea.
      
      –       Findings of the Court
      62      It is settled case-law that the statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC must be appropriate to the measure at issue
         and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in
         question in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent
         Court to exercise its power of review. The requirements to be satisfied by the statement of reasons depend on the circumstances
         of each case, in particular the content of the measure in question, the nature of the reasons given and the interest which
         the addressees of the measure, or other parties to whom it is of direct and individual concern, may have in obtaining explanations.
         It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the
         statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 253 EC must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also
         to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question (Case C‑265/97 P VBA v Florimex and Others [2000] ECR I‑2061, paragraph 93).
      
      63      Moreover, it must be borne in mind that the obligation to provide a statement of reasons is an essential procedural requirement,
         as distinct from the question whether the reasons given are correct, which goes to the substantive legality of the contested
         measure (see T‑112/05 Akzo Nobel and Others v Commission [2007] ECR II‑5049, paragraph 94).
      
      64      Regarding the question whether the procedure established in the United Kingdom satisfies the requirements of clarity and transparency,
         the Commission stated, in recital 4 of the contested decision, that the list of events of major importance for United Kingdom
         society had been drawn up in a clear and transparent manner and that a far-reaching consultation had been launched in that
         Member State (see paragraph 17 above).
      
      65      In that regard, it should be noted, first, that UEFA itself participated in the procedure in question, as organiser of the
         EURO, in submitting, by letter of 23 December 1997 addressed to the Secretary of State, its observations on the potential
         inclusion of that competition in the list of events of major importance for United Kingdom society.
      
      66      Second, the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1996 relating to events of major importance for society are annexed to the
         contested decision. Section 97 of that act provides that the list in question is to be drawn up by the Secretary of State
         following consultation with, inter alia, the person from whom the television broadcasting rights may be acquired in respect
         of any event of national interest which the Secretary of State proposes to include in, or omit from, the list.
      
      67      Third, it is clear from recital 5 of the contested decision, read in conjunction with recitals 6 and 18 thereof, that the
         inclusion of the EURO in the United Kingdom list was approved by the Commission on the ground that that competition has a
         special general resonance within that Member State and not simply a significance to those who ordinarily follow sporting events
         on television, and has traditionally been broadcast on free television and commanded large television audiences. Moreover,
         the criteria in question are among those which the Ministry established prior to the consultation procedure on individual
         events to be included in the United Kingdom list (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above).
      
      68      It follows that the contested decision contains the necessary information to enable UEFA to understand the reason why the
         Commission concluded that the procedure followed by the Secretary of State was clear and transparent having regard to the
         criteria used for the selection of events to include in the list, the consultation relating to that selection and the definition
         of the competent authority for that purpose and the Court to conduct its review of the merits of that appraisal.
      
      69      Since UEFA further submits generally that there was a failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons in regard to the
         freedom to provide services and competition law, it should be borne in mind that, in recitals 19 and 20 of the contested decision,
         the Commission set out its reasons for finding that the United Kingdom measures are not contrary to Community law provisions
         relating to those areas (see paragraph 17 above).
      
      70      In that regard, the Commission stated that the United Kingdom measures appear proportionate so as to justify a derogation
         from the freedom to provide services on grounds of overriding reasons in the public interest, such as televised access for
         the general public to events of major importance for society. Recital 19 of the contested decision shows that the Commission
         set out the reasons why it found that the Treaty provisions relating to the freedom to provide services do not preclude the
         inclusion of the EURO in the list of events of major importance for United Kingdom society in a manner which enables UEFA
         to understand those reasons and to challenge them on their merits and the Court to conduct its review. Since recitals 5, 6
         and 18 of the contested decision set out the Commission’s grounds for finding that the EURO is an event of major importance
         for society, UEFA, as the original holder of the broadcast rights for the EURO, is in a position to assess whether there are
         factors which may call that assessment in question or potentially show that it is disproportionate or otherwise contrary to
         Community law to include all EURO matches in the list of events of major importance for United Kingdom society.
      
      71      Regarding competition law, the Commission stated, in recital 20 of the contested decision, that the criteria used for classifying
         the broadcasters are objective and that the United Kingdom measures allow actual and potential competition for the acquisition
         of the rights to broadcast the events in question. The Commission found that the number of events included is not disproportionate
         so as to distort competition on the downstream free television and pay television markets.
      
      72      It should be observed that, in that recital, the Commission stated the reasons why it takes the view that the United Kingdom
         measures do not infringe Article 86 EC. In that same recital, the Commission also sets out its position by reference to the
         market for acquiring the broadcasting rights for the events in question and the downstream free television and pay television
         markets. It should also be noted that the object of the contested decision is not to assess the lawfulness of the undertakings’
         conduct in the light of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC and, where necessary, adopt measures on the basis of Council Regulation (EC)
         No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty
         (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1), but rather to determine the compatibility of the State measures with Article 86 EC. Accordingly, the
         Commission’s obligation to state reasons under Article 253 EC has been satisfied when it provides an unequivocal explanation
         of the reasons why it finds that the national legislation does not give rise to a restriction on competition which is incompatible
         with the relevant Treaty rules in respect of the undertakings to which special or exclusive rights have been granted.
      
      73      Since those grounds are given in recital 20 of the contested decision, UEFA is in a position to understand the Commission’s
         reasoning and to challenge the merits thereof before the Court, which is able to exercise its power of review in that regard.
      
      74      Regarding UEFA’s arguments to the effect that the Commission did not provide reasons in the contested decision to the requisite
         legal standard by failing to take into account factors arising after the year 2000 to determine the accuracy of the Secretary
         of State’s assessments which led to the inclusion of the EURO in the list of events of major importance for United Kingdom
         society, those factors do not relate to the reasoning in the contested decision, but rather to the merits of its reasons.
         Since the Commission did set out, in recitals 5, 6 and 18 of the contested decision, its reasons for finding that the EURO
         could legitimately be included in the list in question, a failure to take into account factors liable to invalidate its assessment
         in that regard, if it were to be established, affects the lawfulness of the contested decision as to its merits. Those arguments
         therefore fall to be examined under the third plea in law.
      
      75      As to the argument that the Commission ought to have given specific reasons for its choice to follow a different approach
         from that used in respect of Member States which included only certain EURO matches in their lists, it is clear that the Commission
         had no such obligation in the present case.
      
      76      In that regard, as Article 3a of Directive 89/552 does not effect a harmonisation of specific events which Member States might
         consider to be of major importance for society (see paragraphs 51 and 52 above), different approaches concerning the inclusion
         of EURO matches in a national list may be equally compatible with that provision.
      
      77      In those circumstances, if the inclusion of the EURO in its entirety in a national list is compatible with Community law,
         there is nothing preventing the inclusion of only certain matches of that competition from being equally compatible with Community
         law. Accordingly, contrary to the applicant’s submissions, the fact that the Commission stated, in its decisions, that different
         approaches were also compatible with Community law is not necessarily contradictory and does not call for any specific statement
         of reasons.
      
      78      The second plea in law must accordingly be rejected.
      
       The first plea: infringement of Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552
      –       Arguments of the parties
      79      UEFA observes that Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552 requires Member States to draw up the list of events of major importance
         for society in a clear and transparent manner in due and effective time. In that regard, the contested decision merely states,
         in recital 4, that that requirement had been fulfilled and that a far‑reaching consultation was launched in the United Kingdom.
      
      80      That consultation was incomplete, however, as the Secretary of State failed to take proper account of UEFA’s comments. The
         Secretary of State also ignored the advice of the Advisory Group on listed events (see paragraph 8 above), which recommended
         including matches not involving the United Kingdom’s national teams in the list’s ‘Group B’, and that of the Office of Fair
         Trading (OFT), which proposed that matches be included in the list of events of major importance for society only where warranted
         by an ‘overwhelming public interest’. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State failed to explain why he did not follow that advice
         or why each EURO match must be considered as being of major importance for United Kingdom society.
      
      81      Nor was any consultation held regarding the definition of qualified broadcasters in the categories established by section
         98 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 (see paragraph 9 above), criteria which exacerbate the restrictions on competition imposed
         by the United Kingdom legislation and make it practically impossible for broadcasters established outside the United Kingdom
         to acquire exclusive television broadcasting rights for events included in the list. The classification of broadcasters into
         categories also affects the scope of the consequences of an event’s being included in the list.
      
      82      UEFA observes that the United Kingdom has not amended the list of events of major importance for society since 1998; yet the
         market has changed profoundly since then. A consultation held in 1997 and in 1998 cannot, therefore, be considered appropriate
         for the purposes of adopting a Commission decision in October 2007.
      
      83      The Broadcasting Act 1996 does not meet the requirements of Article 3a of Directive 89/552, as it does not require the Secretary
         of State to consider whether a deferred broadcast is sufficient to safeguard the public interest in televised access to an
         event of major importance. Moreover, the procedure by which each event is placed on one list or another is neither clear nor
         transparent. Accordingly, the statement in recital 21 of the contested decision, to the effect that the proportionality of
         the United Kingdom measures is reinforced by the fact that a number of the events listed require adequate secondary coverage
         only, does not explain why it was reasonable and proportionate to include all EURO matches in the ‘Group A’ list.
      
      84      UEFA observes that the United Kingdom measures impose restrictions on exclusive rights acquired as from 1 October 1996, whereas
         the EURO was included in that Member State’s list only on 25 June 1998. Yet the Commission did not examine the lawfulness
         of the imposition of retroactive restrictions on the rights relating to the EURO, even though such a course of action does
         not seem compatible with either the United Kingdom legislation or Article 3a(3) of Directive 89/552. 
      
      85      Lastly, UEFA observes that its complaints call in question the validity of the contested decision, since the Commission found
         incorrectly that the procedure followed at national level was clear and transparent, and that the fact that it did not challenge
         the United Kingdom measures before the national courts does not preclude it from raising this plea.
      
      86      The Commission, supported by the interveners, disputes the merits of this plea.
      
      –       Findings of the Court
      87      It should be borne in mind, as a preliminary point, that Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552 does not set out specific matters
         which must feature in the procedures put in place at national level for the purposes of drawing up the list of events of major
         importance for society. That provision leaves the Member States a margin of discretion for organising the procedures in question
         as regards their stages, possible consultation of parties concerned and allocation of administrative competence, whilst stating
         that they must be clear and transparent as a whole.
      
      88      Restrictions on the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty through national measures justified by overriding
         reasons in the public interest must still be appropriate for attaining the objective which they pursue and not go beyond what
         is necessary in order to attain that objective (see paragraph 46 above).
      
      89      Thus, even where national legislation, such as that referred to in Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552, has as its object the
         safeguarding of the freedom of expression (see paragraphs 47 to 49 above), the requirements imposed under measures designed
         to implement such a policy must in no case be disproportionate in relation to that aim and the manner in which they are applied
         must not bring about discrimination against nationals of other Member States (see, to that effect, Case C-379/87 Groener [1989] ECR 3967, paragraph 19, and Case C-112/00 Schmidberger [2003] ECR I‑5659, paragraph 82).
      
      90      It is in this context that the procedures put in place by the Member States for adopting the list of events of major importance
         for society must be clear and transparent, in the sense that they must be based on objective criteria which are known in advance
         by the parties concerned, so as to prevent the Member States’ discretion for deciding on the specific events to include in
         their lists from being exercised in an arbitrary manner (see, to that effect, United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium and Others, paragraph 45 above, paragraph 46). Although it is true that, under Article 3a of Directive 89/552, in order for an event
         to be included in the list, it must be of major importance for society, the fact remains that the prior establishment of specific
         criteria used to assess that importance is an essential factor in order for national decisions to be adopted in a transparent
         manner and within the parameters of the discretion which the national authorities have in that regard (see paragraph 119 below).
      
      91      The requirement of clarity and transparency of the procedure also implies that the relevant provisions indicate the body which
         is responsible for drawing up the list of events and the conditions in which interested parties may submit their observations.
      
      92      However, the mere presence of evidence aimed at invalidating the assessment of a national authority as to the importance of
         a specific event for society does not go to the clarity or transparency of the procedure followed, but rather to the merits
         of that assessment. The same is true when that evidence consists in opinions or observations set out by advisory bodies, by
         services coming under the competent authority or by interested parties who participated in the procedure.
      
      93      Therefore, UEFA’s arguments alleging a failure to take account of the recommendations of the Advisory Group on listed events,
         the Office of Fair Trading and its own observations are not apt to call into question the Commission’s assessment as to the
         clarity or transparency of the procedure followed by the Secretary of State for the purposes of adopting the list of events
         of major importance for United Kingdom society (see paragraphs 6 to 8 above).
      
      94      Moreover, the requirement of clarity and transparency laid down in Article 3a of Directive 89/552 does not have either as
         its object or its effect to oblige the competent national authority to set out the reasons why it did not follow the opinions
         or observations put forward to it during the consultation procedure. UEFA’s arguments alleging that neither the Secretary
         of State nor the Commission set out the reasons why the opinion of the Advisory Group on listed events was not followed are
         thus not suitable for establishing that the contested decision is vitiated by error in concluding that the procedure put in
         place in the United Kingdom is clear and transparent.
      
      95      That conclusion is all the more compelling in relation to the EURO, which is referred to in recital 18 in the preamble to
         Directive 97/36 and may reasonably be regarded as a single event rather than as a series of individual events divided up into
         ‘gala’ and ‘non-gala’ matches and into matches involving the relevant national team (see paragraph 103 below).
      
      96      In those circumstances, if an interested party takes the view that the opinions or observations put forward during the consultation
         procedure contain aspects which invalidate the final assessment of the competent authority as to the importance of the event
         in question for society, it may, first, challenge the assessment in question before the national courts and, second, challenge
         before the General Court the merits of any decision by the Commission endorsing that assessment, as UEFA has, moreover, done
         with its third plea in law.
      
      97      Furthermore, a failure to consult as to the criteria for grouping the broadcasters, if it were established, does not affect
         the validity of the Commission’s assessment as to the clarity or transparency of the procedure followed by the Secretary of
         State for the purposes of adopting the list of events of major importance for United Kingdom society. Under Article 3a(1)
         of Directive 89/552, the obligation of clarity and transparency concerns the procedure for drawing up the list in question
         and not the procedure under which the entire legal framework for safeguarding the right to information has been put in place.
         Lastly, the compatibility of that legal framework with Community law falls to be assessed by the Commission under Article
         3a(2) of that same directive.
      
      98      Nor does the question whether the Commission could legitimately base itself on information gleaned from a consultation held
         prior to 1998 for the purposes of adopting the contested decision in 2007 go to the clarity or transparency of the procedure
         put in place at national level, but concerns rather the merits of the Commission’s assessment of the inclusion of the EURO
         in the United Kingdom list, a question which will be considered as part of the examination of the third plea.
      
      99      Similarly, UEFA’s arguments to the effect that the Broadcasting Act 1996 does not oblige the Secretary of State to consider
         first whether the public interest may be adequately safeguarded by a deferred broadcast of events of major importance for
         United Kingdom society by free channels cannot succeed. It is clear, in that regard, that that line of argument is based on
         an incorrect reading of the last sentence of Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552. That part of the provision in question does
         not oblige Member States to consider whether the object of televised access for a significant proportion of the public to
         an event of major importance for society may be adequately safeguarded where it is broadcast live by a pay channel and deferred
         by a free channel. That sentence allows Member States to provide that an event of major importance for society must be broadcast
         on television, a possibility of which the United Kingdom has not availed itself. The national legislation in question does
         not set out any broadcasting obligations for broadcasters, as indicated, moreover, in section 9 of the Code on Sports and
         Other Listed and Designated Events.
      
      100    By way of corollary, Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552 does not require Member States to provide for separate procedures for
         establishing each of the categories in which they have found it appropriate to classify events of major importance for their
         society. In fact, that provision requires that the events included in the list actually be of major importance for society,
         although it does not intervene in a Member State’s assessment as to the appropriateness of grouping those events into various
         categories. Accordingly, the fact that there is a single procedure for drawing up the list in question as a whole does not
         invalidate the Commission’s assessment of the clarity and transparency of the procedure put in place in the United Kingdom.
         UEFA’s complaint cannot, therefore, succeed.
      
      101    Consequently, the Commission was not required to set out specifically in the contested decision the reasons as to why it was
         appropriate to include all EURO matches in ‘Group A’ in the United Kingdom list; UEFA’s argument in that regard must, accordingly,
         be dismissed.
      
      102    Regarding the argument to the effect that the Secretary of State did not set out the reasons why each EURO match had to be
         considered as being of major importance for society, first, it must be borne in mind that the EURO is referred to in recital
         18 in the preamble to Directive 97/36 as an example of an event of major importance for society. Second, as part of its third
         plea, UEFA submits that only the so-called ‘gala’ matches, such as the opening match and the final, and matches involving
         a national team of the United Kingdom are actually of major importance for United Kingdom society. 
      
      103    Third, although it is true that no position is adopted in recital 18 in the preamble to Directive 97/36 on the question of
         whether all or some of the EURO matches should be included in a national list of events of major importance for society (see
         paragraph 52 above), there is no valid consideration leading to the conclusion that, in principle, only ‘gala’ matches and
         matches involving a national team of the United Kingdom may be thus categorised for the society of that Member State and therefore
         included in such a list. In fact, the EURO is a competition which may reasonably be regarded as a single event as a whole
         rather than as a series of individual events divided up into ‘gala’ and ‘non-gala’ matches and into matches involving the
         relevant national team. It is well known that, in the EURO, the participation of the teams in ‘gala’ matches or in matches
         involving the relevant national team may depend on the results of ‘non-gala’ matches, which determine the fate of those teams.
         Thus ‘non-gala’ matches determine the opponents of the relevant national team in the subsequent stages of the competition.
         In addition, the results of ‘non-gala’ matches may even determine whether or not that national team advances to the subsequent
         stage of the competition.
      
      104    Given that specific context which characterises the EURO as a single event, the Secretary of State did not have to provide
         more detailed reasons for its appraisal in respect of ‘non-gala’ matches, especially when the relevant statistics do not show
         that those matches regularly attract a negligible number of television viewers (see paragraphs 126 to 135 below).
      
      105    Moreover, the argument alleging retroactive effect of the United Kingdom legislation does not go to the clarity or transparency
         of the procedure followed for drawing up the list of events of major importance for United Kingdom society. In so far as,
         by that argument, UEFA intends to allege an infringement of Article 3a(3) of Directive 89/552, it should be noted that that
         provision lays down, as part of the mechanism of mutual recognition, the obligations of the Member States other than the one
         which adopted a list of events of major importance for society. Accordingly, the reference to rights acquired after publication
         of Directive 97/36 concerns the rules which the other Member States must adopt in order to comply with their obligations of
         mutual recognition and not the course of action taken by the Member State which adopted the list, in this case the United
         Kingdom.
      
      106    Therefore, UEFA’s arguments fail to establish that the Commission erred in finding that the procedure described in paragraphs
         7 and 8 above was clear and transparent.
      
      107    The first plea must, accordingly, be dismissed.
      
       The third plea: infringement of Article 3a(2) of Directive 89/552
      –       Arguments of the parties
      108    UEFA submits that none of the criteria referred to by the Commission in recital 5 of the contested decision (see paragraph
         17 above) is met by the totality of the matches of the EURO.
      
      109    In regards to the first criterion, UEFA submits that the Commission’s assessment described in recital 6 of the contested decision,
         to the effect that the EURO in its entirety has a special general resonance in the United Kingdom, as it is particularly popular
         with the general public, not just with viewers who usually follow sports events on television, is vitiated by a manifest error
         of assessment. That error affects the categorisation of the EURO in its entirety as an event of major importance for United
         Kingdom society because, contrary to the Commission’s submissions, the EURO does not meet the first criterion referred to
         in recital 5 of the contested decision.
      
      110    Two surveys relating to the United Kingdom carried out by a market research company commissioned by UEFA show that, of the
         people ‘not usually interested’ or ‘not at all interested’ by football, only a low percentage is interested in the matches
         of the EURO not involving a national team of the United Kingdom. Thus, 20% of those who are ‘not usually interested’ by football
         would be ‘somewhat interested’ in such matches, as compared with 1% who would be ‘extremely interested’ and 45% who would
         be interested in EURO matches involving a national team of the United Kingdom. Moreover, among those who ‘occasionally’ watch
         television broadcasts of football matches, only 33% would be interested in a match not involving a national team of the United
         Kingdom, as compared with 56% who would be interested in a match involving a national team of the United Kingdom. Meanwhile,
         among those who ‘never’ watch football on television, only 4% would be interested in a match not involving a national team
         of the United Kingdom.
      
      111    Those findings are corroborated by viewing figures for the United Kingdom, according to which matches from EURO 2004 not involving
         a national team of the United Kingdom attracted an average of only 32% of the television viewing audience at the time of the
         matches, as compared with an average of 67% of television viewers who watched when a match involved a national team of the
         United Kingdom. The figures for EURO 2000 and 2008 show a similar pattern, whilst in EURO 1996 the group stage matches not
         involving a national team of the United Kingdom attracted, on average, half of the television viewers who watched the group
         stage matches involving a national team of the United Kingdom. In UEFA’s submission, those figures show that EURO matches
         not involving a national team of the United Kingdom do not have a special resonance in the society of the United Kingdom,
         with the result that it would be incorrect to conclude that television viewers who do not usually watch football would be
         interested in those matches and that those matches are of major importance for United Kingdom society.
      
      112    UEFA adds that two matches from EURO 2004 and two matches from EURO 2008 were broadcast, with the authorisation of the Office
         of Communications, by television channels in the second category as established by the United Kingdom legislation (see paragraph
         9 above) and attracted between 4 000 and 739 000 viewers. Yet, in UEFA’s submission, if those matches really were of major
         importance for United Kingdom society, BBC and ITV would not have asked for authorisation to broadcast them on their secondary
         channels and those matches would not have had such low viewing figures. UEFA adds that the channels which broadcast those
         matches cover a significant proportion of the public in the United Kingdom (31.6 million in 2004 and 50.4 million in 2008),
         with the result that those viewing figures cannot be attributed to a low rate of coverage.
      
      113    Regarding the fourth of those criteria, which the Commission seems to have endorsed in recital 18 of the contested decision
         in respect of the EURO, UEFA submits that it does not constitute an appropriate basis for measuring the importance of an event
         for society. In fact, before the development of pay television, this criterion would have applied to every sporting event
         that was televised.
      
      114    Moreover, EURO matches not involving a national team of the United Kingdom regularly attract much lower numbers of viewers
         there than matches involving such a national team, with the result that, apart from the ‘gala’ matches, only matches involving
         a national team of the United Kingdom are really of importance for United Kingdom society as a whole. This point was even
         recognised in the context of a Commission decision on competition in the television broadcasting sector. It is also quite
         telling that EURO matches not involving a national team did not achieve the viewing figures of the last of the top 10 sporting
         events of 2007 nor of the last of the top 100 television programmes of 2006 and 2007. 
      
      115    The predominant interest for the national team also features in viewer habits in other Member States, such as Germany, Spain,
         France, Italy and the Netherlands, with the data for the United Kingdom showing an even stronger tendency in that vein, in
         respect of other sports as well. Yet, in respect of the EURO, apart from the Kingdom of Belgium and the United Kingdom, almost
         all Member States which have drawn up lists of events of major importance for their society have included only ‘gala’ matches
         and matches involving the relevant national team. There is, however, no objective difference justifying the approach adopted
         by the United Kingdom, which the Commission could have found out for itself had it investigated the matter. 
      
      116    Consequently, in concluding that the EURO, in its entirety, assumes major importance for United Kingdom society, the Commission
         made a manifest error of assessment. That error also constitutes de facto discrimination against UEFA in the sale of television broadcasting rights for the EURO in the United Kingdom. Thus, the Commission
         did not correctly verify the compatibility of the national measures with Community law, thereby infringing its obligation
         under Article 3a(2) of Directive 89/552.
      
      117    UEFA adds that if recital 18 in the preamble to Directive 97/36 is to be interpreted as meaning that the EURO as a whole must
         be considered of major importance for society, it is vitiated by unlawfulness which can be reviewed by virtue of Article 241 EC.
      
      118    The Commission, supported by the interveners, disputes the merits of this plea and adds that UEFA did not validly raise an
         objection to Directive 97/36 pursuant to Article 241 EC. The Commission further confirms that the EURO, taken in its entirety,
         fulfils the first and fourth criteria referred to in recital 5 of the contested decision, as indicated in recitals 6 and 18
         thereof.
      
      –       Findings of the Court
      119    It should be borne in mind, first, that, in providing that it is for the Member States to define which events are of major
         importance for their society for the purposes of recital 21 in the preamble to Directive 97/36, Article 3a of Directive 89/552
         leaves the Member States considerable discretion in that regard.
      
      120    Next, even though Article 3a of Directive 89/552 does not effect a harmonisation of specific events which a Member State may
         consider to be of major importance for its society (see paragraphs 51 and 52 above), the reference to the EURO in recital
         18 in the preamble to Directive 97/36 implies that the Commission cannot consider the inclusion of EURO matches in a list
         of events to be contrary to Community law on the ground that the Member State concerned did not notify it of the specific
         reasons justifying them as an event of major importance for society (see paragraph 53 above). However, any finding by the
         Commission that the inclusion of the entire EURO in a list of events of major importance for society of a Member State is
         compatible with Community law, on the ground that the EURO is, by its nature, legitimately regarded as a single event, may
         be called in question on the basis of specific factors showing that the ‘non-gala’ matches are not of such importance for
         the society of that Member State.
      
      121    As stated in paragraphs 51 and 52 above, neither recital 18 of Directive 97/36 nor Article 3a of Directive 89/552 addresses
         the question of whether the EURO in its entirety may legitimately be included in a list of events of major importance for
         society, irrespective of the interest for the matches, particularly ‘non-gala’ matches, in the Member State concerned.
      
      122    Consequently, any discussion about the lawfulness of Directive 97/36 in relation to categorisation of the EURO in its entirety
         as an event of major importance for society, rather than only the ‘gala’ matches and matches involving a national team of
         the United Kingdom (see paragraph 117 above), is purposeless, since recital 18 in the preamble thereto does not address that
         question. It is therefore unnecessary to rule on the question whether UEFA could legitimately put forward a plea pursuant
         to Article 241 EC in its reply.
      
      123    Moreover, as explained in paragraph 103 above, the EURO may reasonably be regarded as a single event rather than as a series
         of individual events divided into matches of various levels of interest, with the result that the Secretary of State’s approach
         is not arbitrary but within the limits of his discretion.
      
      124    The importance of the ‘non-gala’ matches arises, moreover, from the simple fact that they are part of the EURO tournament,
         just like other sports for which interest, usually low, is heightened when they take place in the Olympic Games.
      
      125    It follows that, in not questioning the view that it was not necessary to distinguish between ‘gala’ matches and matches involving
         a national team of the United Kingdom, on the one hand, and ‘non-gala’ matches, on the other, for the purpose of determining
         the importance of the EURO for United Kingdom society and that the EURO should be considered in its entirety and not as a
         series of individual events (recitals 6 and 18 of the contested decision, see paragraph 17 above), the Commission did not
         make any error.
      
      126    Lastly, the results of the studies commissioned by UEFA confirm that finding rather than invalidate it, with the result that
         the arguments put forward by UEFA in that regard as part of the present plea do not affect the findings in recitals 6 and
         18 of the contested decision.
      
      127    It should be observed, first, that the inclusion of ‘non-gala’ matches in the national list of events of major importance
         for society does not require that they draw the same number of viewers as ‘gala’ matches and matches involving the relevant
         national team, nor that they foster, among non-fans of football, an interest of equal intensity to that generated by ‘gala’
         matches or matches involving the relevant national team.
      
      128    Second, contrary to UEFA’s submissions, the fact that 21% of United Kingdom residents who are not usually interested in football
         state that they are interested in EURO matches not involving a national team of the United Kingdom, as compared with 45% stating
         they are interested in matches involving such a team (see paragraph 110 above), shows that the first category of matches arouses
         much greater interest among non-fans of football than do matches which are not part of a major international football competition
         involving national teams and not involving a national team of the United Kingdom. The same holds true for the 7% of United
         Kingdom residents who are completely uninterested in football, who state that they nevertheless are interested in EURO matches
         not involving a national team of the United Kingdom, as compared with 17% of the same group who state that they are interested
         in matches involving such a team. In contrast, therefore, to what is seen to be the case for ‘non-gala’ matches of the EURO,
         persons who, according to the very premiss of the survey in question, are usually or completely uninterested in football will,
         by definition, not be interested in matches which are not part of a major international football competition involving national
         teams and which, in addition, do not involve a national team of the United Kingdom.
      
      129    The foregoing conclusions are further confirmed by the fact that, according to the same survey, 33% of United Kingdom residents
         who occasionally watch football on television are interested in EURO matches not involving a national team of the United Kingdom,
         as compared with 56% who are interested in matches involving such a team. The percentages rise to 36% and 55% respectively
         when the sample is expanded to include those who never watch football on television and show that the Commission’s finding
         that all EURO matches have a special resonance with the general public is not vitiated by error.
      
      130    Regarding the information on the viewing figures produced by UEFA concerning EURO 2004, it should be observed that the ‘non-gala’
         matches attracted between 25.5% and 44.2% of all television viewers, with a maximum of 8.8 million viewers, whilst the corresponding
         percentages for matches involving the England national team are between 65.9% and 72.5%, with a maximum of 20.7 million viewers.
         
      
      131    The data for EURO 2000 show a similar pattern, with ‘non-gala’ matches drawing between 25.7% and 49.6% of all television viewers,
         with a maximum of 9.7 million viewers, and matches involving the England national team attracting between 58.5% and 74.9%
         of all viewers, with a maximum of 16.9 million viewers. 
      
      132    The figures for EURO 1996, which are expressed in absolute numbers of viewers, show that ‘non-gala’ matches drew between 2.9
         and 8.5 million viewers, whilst matches involving the England national team drew between 8.7 and 23.8 million viewers.
      
      133    It should also be noted that, according to the same survey, the final of the 2007 Football Association Cup (FA Cup) drew approximately
         10.1 million viewers.
      
      134    Viewed both in the absolute and in relation to the percentages and viewing figures achieved by matches involving the England
         national team, but also to the viewing figures for the final of the 2007 FA Cup, the percentages and viewing figures for ‘non-gala’
         matches confirm that those matches draw exceptionally large numbers of viewers in the United Kingdom, which can only be explained
         by the fact that they are included in the EURO fixture list. Those statistical data thus confirm the findings in paragraphs
         103 and 124 above and support the position set out in recital 18 of the contested decision, to the effect that EURO matches,
         including ‘non-gala’ matches, have traditionally drawn large numbers of viewers. Therefore, even if the Commission did not
         take account of data subsequent to the year 2000, as UEFA maintains, that does not call in question the conclusions it reached
         on the basis of older information.
      
      135    That analysis is not called into question by the allegedly particularly low viewing figures relied on by UEFA in respect of
         two matches from EURO 2004 and two matches from EURO 2008 (see paragraph 112 above). As pointed out by UEFA, three of the
         matches in question were played at the same time as other matches not involving a national team of the United Kingdom, which
         drew between 4.6 and 8.8 million viewers on free channels in the first category as established by the United Kingdom legislation.
         It follows that that argument does not show that the matches not involving a national team of the United Kingdom do not generally
         attract many viewers. As to the fourth match, between France and Switzerland, it was played at the same time as a match involving
         the England national team, which drew 18.2 million viewers, which clearly explains why it drew merely 4 000 viewers, especially
         when it was shown on an Internet channel, BBCi.
      
      136    The argument to the effect that, if those ‘non-gala’ matches were of major importance for society, broadcasters would have
         broadcast them on their main channels, cannot succeed. It should be borne in mind, first, that the inclusion of those matches
         in the list of events of major importance for United Kingdom society is justified by the fact that the EURO as a whole may
         legitimately be regarded as such an event (see paragraph 103 above) and, second, that the inclusion of ‘non-gala’ matches
         in that list does not require them to be of equal importance as the ‘gala’ matches or matches involving the relevant national
         team (see paragraph 127 above). Furthermore, not all ‘non-gala’ matches need to be of major importance for United Kingdom
         society in order for the EURO to be legitimately included, in its entirety, in that Member State’s list of such events. Rather,
         it is sufficient that the characteristics described in paragraph 103 above concern some of the ‘non-gala’ matches, the number
         and participants of which cannot be known at the times when the list is drawn up and when broadcast rights are acquired, in
         order to justify not distinguishing between the different matches of the EURO in terms of their importance for society. Thus,
         in the light of the exceptional and understandable nature of the viewing figures for those specific matches (see paragraphs
         134 and 135 above), the fact that BBC or ITV did not choose to broadcast them on one of their main channels does not affect
         the conclusion set out in paragraph 125 above.
      
      137    Moreover, the finding in paragraph 134 above does not conflict with the one set out in recital 40 of Commission Decision 2000/400/EC
         of 10 May 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] (Case No IV/32.150 – Eurovision, OJ 2000 L 151, p. 18),
         referred to by UEFA (see paragraph 114 above). That recital states that international events tend to be more attractive for
         the public in a given country than national ones, provided the national team or a national champion is involved, while international
         events in which no national champion or team is participating can often be of little interest. In the vast majority of cases,
         the EURO does involve a national team of the United Kingdom. Even when, exceptionally, it does not, the absence of any United
         Kingdom national team in the EURO is usually established after the list of events of major importance for United Kingdom society
         has been drawn up, and also after the television broadcasting rights have been sold for the relevant year.
      
      138    The fact that the United Kingdom adopted a different approach than that of other Member States, who included primarily ‘gala’
         matches and matches involving their respective national teams in their lists, does not affect the foregoing assessments, which
         afforded a proper appraisal of the EURO in its entirety as an event of major importance for United Kingdom society. Since
         Article 3a of Directive 89/552 does not effect a harmonisation of specific events which Member States might consider to be
         of major importance for their society (see paragraphs 51 and 52 above), different approaches about the inclusion of EURO matches
         in a national list may be equally compatible with that provision.
      
      139    It follows that UEFA’s arguments, to the effect that the assessments in recitals 6 and 18 of the contested decision concerning
         the special resonance the EURO has for United Kingdom society as a whole and the number of viewers attracted by all EURO matches
         are vitiated by error, cannot succeed.
      
      140    The same holds true for the argument alleging that, before the advent of pay television, all events were broadcast on free
         channels, with the result that the criterion relating to that argument is irrelevant. It should be observed that, even if
         pay television emerged well after free television, the fact that an event was traditionally broadcast on a free channel up
         to that point remains a relevant criterion. Even before the advent of pay television, many events were not broadcast on the
         free channels of the time, with the result that that criterion cannot be regarded as being automatically met today in respect
         of such an event. Moreover, a memorandum from the United Kingdom to the Commission dated 24 March 1999, the content of which
         is found in a document entitled ‘Draft reply to European Commission’s letter of 23 December 1998’, annexed to the statement
         in defence, states that the EURO has traditionally been broadcast on free channels in the United Kingdom and that, since 1988,
         every EURO match has been broadcast live. As UEFA has not challenged this point, its argument about traditional broadcast
         of the EURO by free channels must be dismissed.
      
      141    Given that UEFA’s arguments to the effect that the Commission erred in upholding the Secretary of State’s assessment that
         the EURO in its entirety constitutes an event of major importance for United Kingdom society must be rejected, so too must
         this plea. 
      
       The fifth plea: infringement of the Treaty provisions relating to freedom to provide services
      –       Arguments of the parties
      142    UEFA submits that, as recognised in recital 19 of the contested decision, that decision deprives broadcasters established
         in other Member States of the possibility of broadcasting EURO matches live in the United Kingdom, with the result that it
         places a restriction on freedom to provide services. Although it is true that restrictions on that freedom may be justified
         by overriding reasons in the public interest, they must be compatible with the objectives of the Treaty, apply without discrimination
         and be proportionate. The burden of proof is with the party alleging that the restriction in question is justified.
      
      143    In the present case, the United Kingdom list includes events such as matches not involving a national team of that Member
         State, which cannot be regarded as being of major importance for society. Therefore, the restriction on freedom to provide
         services arising from the inclusion of those matches on the United Kingdom list does not serve a public interest and is not
         compatible with the objectives of the Treaty.
      
      144    Furthermore, the restrictions in issue also lead to de facto discrimination against broadcasters established in Member States
         other than the United Kingdom, since only three United Kingdom broadcasters, the BBC, ITV and Channel 4, are capable of qualifying
         for the first category. The legislation in question thus effectively shields those three operators from any competition from
         broadcasters established in other Member States. Yet experience has shown that such broadcasters can penetrate the United
         Kingdom market by acquiring television broadcast rights for football matches not included in the list of events of major importance
         for United Kingdom society.
      
      145    UEFA also questions the proportionality of the measures taken by the United Kingdom on the ground that a number of EURO matches
         are not of major importance for United Kingdom society, with the result that the contested decision is also vitiated because
         it infringes the principle of proportionality. The disproportionate nature of the United Kingdom measures is exacerbated by
         the requirements imposed in order for broadcasters to qualify for the first category of broadcasters.
      
      146    The Commission, supported by the interveners, disputes the merits of this plea.
      
      –       Findings of the Court
      147    As recognised in recital 19 of the contested decision, the mechanism of mutual recognition triggered by the contested decision
         pursuant to Article 3a of Directive 89/552 has the effect of restricting freedom to provide services in the common market,
         as established by Article 49 EC.
      
      148    As stated by UEFA, notwithstanding the fact that the legislation described in paragraphs 9 and 10 above applies without distinction
         to operators coming within both of the categories established by the United Kingdom legislation, it is, in reality, much less
         likely that no broadcaster in the first category, most probably established in the United Kingdom, will be interested in broadcasting
         the EURO, thereby giving a competitor established in another Member State the opportunity to obtain authorisation from the
         Office of Communications to broadcast that event in practice on an exclusive basis (see paragraph 12 above), than the reverse
         situation.
      
      149    Nevertheless, those restrictions on freedom to provide services may be justified, since they are intended to protect the right
         to information and to ensure wide public access to television broadcasts of events, national or non-national, of major importance
         for society, subject to the additional conditions that they be appropriate for attaining the objective which they pursue and
         not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (see paragraphs 44 to 50 above).
      
      150    In that regard, it must be borne in mind that UEFA disputes the lawfulness of the contested decision in the light of the Treaty
         provisions on freedom to provide services in so far as the Commission approves the inclusion of matches not involving a national
         team of the United Kingdom in the list of events of major importance for United Kingdom society. In UEFA’s submission, those
         matches do not qualify as such, with the result that the restriction on freedom to provide services is disproportionate.
      
      151    However, UEFA’s argument suffers from confusion between, on the one hand, the major importance of an event for society, which
         is the first condition to be met and which is the overriding reason in the public interest justifying a restriction of a fundamental
         freedom guaranteed by the Treaty (see paragraphs 44 to 49 above) and, on the other, the proportionality of the restriction
         in question, which is a second condition which must be met by the national legislation restricting such a freedom in order
         to be compatible with Community law (see paragraph 50 above).
      
      152    Against that background, it should be observed that, as held in paragraphs 123 to 141 above, the EURO may legitimately be
         regarded as a single event of major importance for United Kingdom society, the viewing figures for matches not involving a
         national team of the United Kingdom confirming rather than invalidating the assessment in recitals 6 and 18 of the contested
         decision. It is therefore clear that the argument alleging that the matches in question are not of major importance for society,
         with the result that the United Kingdom measures are disproportionate is, in any event, based on an incorrect assumption.
         Consequently, this plea does not invalidate the Commission’s conclusion that the inclusion of all EURO matches in the list
         of events of major importance for United Kingdom society was appropriate and proportionate, given the unitary nature of the
         EURO.
      
      153    The fifth plea in law must accordingly be rejected.
      
       The fourth plea: infringement of the provisions of the Treaty on competition
      –       Arguments of the parties
      154    UEFA submits that, in disregard of the directions given in Infront WM v Commission, paragraph 14 above, the Commission did not conduct an assessment of the impact of the United Kingdom measures on competition.
         In fact, the wording of recital 20 of the contested decision (see paragraph 17 above) shows that the Commission did not even
         define the relevant market or markets. In that regard, UEFA observes that, further to Decision 2000/400, the acquisition of
         broadcast rights for certain major sporting events, such as the EURO, is a separate market. Yet the Commission did not consider
         whether the acquisition of the rights to broadcast the EURO live constitutes a separate upstream television market in which
         a number of broadcasters compete.
      
      155    If it is recognised that such a market exists, the contested decision, and not Directive 89/552, will lead to a substantial
         reduction and distortion of competition in that market. UEFA states in that regard that the definition of broadcasters in
         the first category established by the United Kingdom legislation (see paragraph 9 above) has the effect in practice that only
         the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 can acquire the rights to broadcast EURO matches live, with the result that all their competitors
         operating pay channels are simply excluded from that market.
      
      156    The United Kingdom measures therefore have the effect of placing those three broadcasters in a privileged position; and two
         of them have used it to the detriment of UEFA. The practical result of that situation is similar to granting special or exclusive
         rights within the meaning of Article 86(1) EC. What the United Kingdom legislation does in effect is to grant to a limited
         number of broadcasters, in this case broadcasters coming within the first category established by it, the possibility of acquiring
         live broadcast rights for the EURO in the United Kingdom and de facto excludes pay channel operators from that procedure. The result is that there is only one potential purchaser of the broadcast
         rights for the EURO in the United Kingdom, since the BBC and ITV, the only operators to show interest, have traditionally
         submitted joint offers. Thus, the restrictive definition of broadcasters in the first category established by the United Kingdom
         legislation has the effect of reinforcing and encouraging the anti-competitive conduct of the broadcasters who are shielded
         from any competition from operators established in the United Kingdom or in other Member States, to the detriment of UEFA
         and consumers in the United Kingdom. In any event, broadcasters coming within the first category established by the United
         Kingdom legislation are in a joint dominant position in the market for the acquisition of rights to broadcast the EURO in
         the United Kingdom.
      
      157    Moreover, recital 20 of the contested decision indicates that the Commission did not consider those effects on competition
         before finding that the United Kingdom measures are compatible with the Treaty provisions on competition. The Commission also
         ignored the views of the Director-General of the Office of Fair Trading, to the effect that the inclusion of an event in the
         list of events of major importance for society should be an exceptional measure, used only where clearly warranted, precisely
         because of the anti-competitive effects it would generate.
      
      158    The Commission also erred in distinguishing, in recital 20 of the contested decision, between the free television market and
         the pay television market, ignoring the fact that both types of operators compete in order to acquire broadcasting rights,
         achieve better audiences and compete on the advertising market. This fact was recognised by the United Kingdom Competition
         Commission.
      
      159    Those omissions become all the more glaring in the present case, where the Commission failed to take account of the evolution
         of the television market since the year 2000. Yet any competition analysis must take account of the situation as it exists
         at the time the Commission decision is adopted.
      
      160    The Commission therefore erred in finding that the United Kingdom measures would not lead to a significant and disproportionate
         distortion of competition.
      
      161    The Commission, supported by the interveners, disputes the merits of this plea.
      
      –       Findings of the Court
      162    UEFA’s line of argument under this plea can be divided into two complaints.
      
      163    The first complaint concerns the consequences resulting from the fact that, in light of the importance of the exclusivity
         of broadcasting rights for the EURO matches for those broadcasters coming within the second category established by the United
         Kingdom legislation, the latter will not be interested in acquiring non-exclusive rights. In UEFA’s submission, that leads
         to restrictions on competition on a number of markets, including the market for acquisition of such rights, the advertising
         market and the market for broadcasting sporting events by pay television channels, due to the reduction in the number of broadcasters
         active on those markets. UEFA also complains that the Commission failed to define those markets and failed to explain its
         assessment of those restrictions.
      
      164    It should be observed, in that regard, that the consequences in question result indirectly from the restrictions on freedom
         to provide services introduced by the United Kingdom measures. Yet, as was held in respect of the fifth plea, restrictions
         on freedom to provide services resulting from the inclusion of all EURO matches in the list of events of major importance
         for United Kingdom society are justified by overriding reasons in the public interest and are neither inappropriate nor disproportionate.
         The effects on the number of potential competitors, which are presented as being an unavoidable consequence of those obstacles
         to the freedom to provide services, cannot, therefore, be considered to be contrary to the Treaty articles on competition.
         In those circumstances, the Commission did not have to conduct a more in-depth analysis of those consequences than that which
         it did.
      
      165    The second complaint concerns the special rights allegedly granted to the BBC and ITV which had the effect of authorising
         or making possible the abuse of the dominant position of those broadcasters on the relevant market, which is, in UEFA’s submission,
         the market for broadcast rights for EURO matches.
      
      166     Under Article 86(1) EC, the competition rule applicable to State measures (Case C‑22/98 Becu and Others [1999] ECR I‑5665, paragraph 31), Member States must not, by laws, regulations or administrative measures, put public undertakings
         and undertakings to which they grant special or exclusive rights in a position which the said undertakings could not themselves
         attain by their own conduct without infringing Articles 12 EC and 81 EC to 89 EC (see, to that effect, Case C‑18/88 GB-Inno-BM [1991] ECR I‑5941, paragraph 20).
      
      167    In that regard, although it is true that special or exclusive rights within the meaning of that provision are granted when
         protection is conferred by the State on a limited number of undertakings which may substantially affect the ability of other
         undertakings to exercise the economic activity in question in the same geographical area under substantially equivalent conditions
         (Case C‑475/99 Ambulanz Glöckner [2001] ECR I‑8089, paragraph 24), the fact remains that the United Kingdom legislation does not confer such protection on
         the broadcasters in question.
      
      168    Thus, such rights are at issue when the public authorities have granted a monopoly (Case C‑163/96 Raso and Others [1998] ECR I‑533, paragraph 23), when they can prevent the entry of a competitor into the market sphere of the rights-holder
         on grounds relating to potential adverse effects on the operation and profitability of the rights-holder’s activities (Ambulanz Glöckner, paragraph 167 above, paragraphs 7, 23 and 25) or labour market requirements (Becu and Others, paragraph 166 above, paragraph 23), or where the rights-holder is entitled, under the relevant legislation, to influence
         the terms under which the activity in question may be pursued by his competitors according to his interests or according to
         the consequences of their activity on that market or even on a neighbouring market (see, to that effect, Case C‑202/88 France v Commission [1991] ECR I‑1223, paragraph 51; Case C‑260/89 ERT [1991] ECR I‑2925, paragraph 37; GB-Inno-BM, paragraph 166 above, paragraph 25; and Case C‑49/07 MOTOE [2008] ECR I‑4863, paragraph 43).
      
      169    However, far from prohibiting itself or empowering the BBC, ITV or Channel 4 to prohibit any broadcaster from acquiring the
         broadcast rights for the EURO matches or to influence the terms under which they may be broadcast, the United Kingdom legislation
         merely provides that they cannot be broadcast on an exclusive basis in the United Kingdom, without distinguishing between
         the two categories of broadcasters (see paragraphs 9 and 10 above). It should be clarified that UEFA alleges, incorrectly,
         that the BBC and ITV are the only broadcasters which may acquire broadcast rights for the EURO for the United Kingdom. First,
         section 101 of the Broadcasting Act 1996 provides, essentially, for a prohibition on exclusive broadcasting. Next, as just
         stated, that prohibition applies equally to all broadcasters in both categories established by the United Kingdom legislation.
         Lastly, the prohibition in question works together with section 99 of the Broadcasting Act 1996, which declares void any contract
         for the broadcast of an event included in the list in so far as it purports to grant an exclusive right to any one broadcaster,
         whoever that may be. 
      
      170    The United Kingdom legislation thus prohibits exclusivity for any broadcaster, not only at the broadcast stage, but also at
         the stage of concluding broadcasting contracts, with the result that no broadcaster coming under United Kingdom jurisdiction
         may validly conclude a contract for the exclusive broadcast of an event included in its list. That legislation does, however,
         allow broadcasters in both categories established by it the same opportunity to submit offers for the acquisition of non-exclusive
         broadcast rights for EURO matches.
      
      171    In those circumstances, the result that, with the authorisation of the Office of Communications, only certain broadcasters
         in the first category, such as the BBC and ITV, will ultimately broadcast the EURO in the United Kingdom, since their competitors
         are interested only in exclusive broadcasting and will therefore not submit offers to acquire the relevant rights (see paragraph
         12 above) is not tantamount to a grant of special or exclusive rights to them within the meaning of Article 86(1) EC. Even
         assuming that the measures at hand would entail such a result, this would be because of the importance of exclusivity as part
         of the business model implemented by those broadcasters operating pay television channels and would not in any way stem from
         the United Kingdom legislation, since the terms of that legislation are applicable without distinction to broadcasters in
         both categories. It follows that the United Kingdom measures as such do not affect the ability of operators of pay television
         channels to pursue their activities on largely equivalent terms as those enjoyed by the BBC or ITV with regard to the acquisition
         of broadcast rights for the EURO.
      
      172    The fourth plea in law must accordingly be rejected.
      
       The sixth plea: infringement of UEFA’s property rights
      –       Arguments of the parties
      173    UEFA observes that the right to property is guaranteed by the Community legal order as a general principle of Community law
         and enshrined in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed at Nice on 7 December 2000
         (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1). UEFA observes that the Member States are required to observe fundamental rights when implementing a
         Community provision such as Article 3a of the Directive.
      
      174    In the present case, as the Commission and the Court acknowledged in Infront WM v Commission, paragraph 14 above, the list approved by the Commission affects UEFA’s property rights, as it precludes the possibility
         of granting exclusive broadcast rights for the EURO, which reduces significantly the number of parties interested in such
         a transaction. Yet that restriction on UEFA’s property rights, which is moreover acknowledged by the Commission in the present
         case, was not justified, as the contested decision does not contain an analysis of the United Kingdom measures from this perspective.
      
      175    Moreover, in the present case, the Commission authorised not only the inclusion of matches of major importance for United
         Kingdom society but also of all EURO matches, with the result that the measures in question are not the least restrictive
         in the light of the objective pursued.
      
      176    The Commission, supported by the interveners, disputes the merits of this plea.
      
      –       Findings of the Court
      177    It should be borne in mind that, as is common ground between the parties, UEFA is the organiser of the EURO within the meaning
         of recital 21 of Directive 97/36, so that any person wishing to exploit television broadcasting rights for that event must
         obtain those rights from UEFA or from a party who has obtained them from UEFA.
      
      178    Thus, since the value of those rights is liable to be affected by the legal effects arising from the contested decision (see
         paragraphs 30 to 34 above), UEFA’s property right is also affected.
      
      179    It follows, moreover, from the case-law that, where a Member State relies on provisions such as Articles 46 EC and 55 EC in
         order to justify rules which are liable to obstruct the exercise of the freedom to provide services or the freedom of establishment,
         such justification, provided for by Community law, must be interpreted in the light of the general principles of law and in
         particular of fundamental rights. Thus the national rules in question can fall under the exceptions provided for by those
         provisions only if they are compatible with the fundamental rights the observance of which is ensured by the Community judicature
         (see, to that effect, Case C‑260/89 ERT [1991] ECR I‑2925, paragraph 43). Similarly, it cannot be accepted that a national measure which is not compatible with fundamental
         rights, such as the right to property (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C‑20/00 and C‑64/00 Booker Aquaculture and Hydro Seafood [2003] ECR I‑7411, paragraph 67), may fall under the exceptions recognised on the basis that the measure reflects an overriding
         reason in the public interest, such as television access for the general public to events of major importance for society.
      
      180    However, the principle of protection of the fundamental right to property under Community law is not absolute but must be
         viewed in relation to its social function. Consequently, the exercise of the right to property may be restricted, provided
         that those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives in the public interest and do not constitute in relation to the aim
         pursued a disproportionate and intolerable interference, impairing the very substance of the right guaranteed (see, to that
         effect, Case C‑347/03 Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia and ERSA [2005] ECR I‑3785, paragraph 119, and Joined Cases C‑154/04 and C‑155/04 Alliance for Natural Health and Others [2005] ECR I‑6451, paragraph 126).
      
      181    It must be borne in mind in that regard that, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 123 to 141 above and contrary to UEFA’s
         submissions, the EURO may legitimately be regarded as a single event of major importance for United Kingdom society, the viewing
         figures relating to ‘non-gala’ matches confirming rather than invalidating the assessment in recitals 6 and 18 of the contested
         decision. In this context, as held in paragraph 152 above, the fact that the EURO is, by nature, a single event means that
         the Commission did not err in finding that the inclusion of all EURO matches in the United Kingdom list is a proportionate
         measure.
      
      182    Accordingly, the complaint that the inclusion of ‘non-gala’ matches in the list of events of major importance for United Kingdom
         society is a disproportionate and intolerable interference with UEFA’s property rights on the ground that those matches are
         not such events is based on an incorrect assumption.
      
      183    Furthermore, although the legislation in question is liable to affect the price which UEFA will obtain for grant of the rights
         to broadcast the EURO in the United Kingdom, it does not destroy the commercial value of those rights because, first, it does
         not oblige UEFA to sell them under whatever conditions it can obtain and, secondly, UEFA is protected against collusive and
         abusive practices by Community and national competition law. Accordingly, the Commission did not err in finding that the United
         Kingdom measures were proportionate.
      
      184    The sixth plea in law must accordingly be rejected.
      
       The seventh plea: infringement of the principle of proportionality
      –       Arguments of the parties
      185    In UEFA’s submission, the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 5 EC in approving the
         inclusion of all EURO matches in the list of events of major importance for United Kingdom society, whereas matches not involving
         a national team of that Member State do not qualify as such.
      
      186    The Commission, supported by the interveners, disputes UEFA’s assertions in that regard.
      
      –       Findings of the Court
      187    It must be borne in mind that any measure adopted for overriding reasons in the public interest and restricting the exercise
         of a fundamental freedom established by the Treaty must be proportionate to the objective it pursues (see paragraph 46 above).
         This plea also suffers from the confusion referred to in relation to the fifth plea (see paragraph 151 above).
      
      188    It must be observed in that regard that, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 123 to 141 above and contrary to UEFA’s assertions,
         the EURO may legitimately be regarded as a single event of major importance for United Kingdom society, as the statistics
         for the ‘non-gala’ matches of the EURO and those not involving a national team of the United Kingdom confirm rather than invalidate
         the assessment referred to in recitals 6 and 18 of the contested decision.
      
      189    Therefore, the complaint that the inclusion of the ‘non-gala’ matches of the EURO and those not involving a national team
         of the United Kingdom in the list of events of major importance for society of that Member State is disproportionate on the
         ground that those matches do not qualify as such is, at the very least, based on an incorrect assumption.
      
      190    The seventh plea in law must accordingly be rejected.
      
       The eighth plea: infringement of the principle of equal treatment
      –       Arguments of the parties
      191    UEFA submits, within the framework of the present plea, that the contested decision gives rise to unequal or discriminatory
         treatment to its detriment in relation to the marketing of broadcasting rights for the EURO. The contested decision makes
         no reference to objective reasons justifying the inclusion of all EURO matches in the list of events of major importance for
         United Kingdom society, whereas other events clearly have a much greater resonance in the United Kingdom and yet have not
         been included in the list. Thus the Commission did not act consistently or rationally, with the result that its infringement
         of the principle of equal treatment leads to a distortion of competition and impedes the functioning of the common market.
      
      192    The Commission, supported by the interveners, disputes the merits of this plea.
      
      –       Findings of the Court
      193    It should be observed, first, that the principle of non-discrimination prohibits, first, treating similar situations differently
         and, secondly, treating different situations in the same way unless there are objective reasons for such treatment (Case C‑422/02 P
         Europe Chemi-Con (Deutschland) v Council [2005] ECR I‑791, paragraph 33).
      
      194    Next, it should be noted that Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552 does not oblige the Member States to draw up a list of events
         of major importance for society; nor does it require them, should such a list be drawn up, to include an event in the list
         even if the event could legitimately have been included. In addition to stating that each Member State ‘may’ adopt measures
         attaining the objectives to which it refers, that provision gives concrete expression to the ability of the Member States
         to derogate from certain rules of the Treaty, such as those governing freedom to provide services. Where a selection is made
         from among a number of specific events of major importance for society for the purposes of Directive 97/36, the Member States
         may not be required, directly or indirectly, to include in their lists events other than the ones they choose to include,
         or to derogate from the Treaty any more than they wish to do. Furthermore, the Commission’s assessment under Article 3a(2)
         of Directive 89/552 as to the nature of the events included as events of major importance for society is conducted in relation
         to their own features and not in relation to the features of other events which have not been included.
      
      195    Therefore, when an event is of major importance for the society of a Member State, the Commission does not infringe the principle
         of equal treatment if, in the review it carries out pursuant to Article 3a(2) of Directive 89/552, it does not oppose its
         inclusion in the list drawn up by the Member State in question on the ground that another event, possibly of greater importance
         for that society, is not included.
      
      196    Thus even if there are other events, within the meaning of recital 21 of Directive 97/36, of greater importance for United
         Kingdom society than the EURO which are not included in the list drawn up by the Secretary of State, the Commission did not
         infringe the principle of equal treatment in accepting the inclusion of the EURO in that list.
      
      197    It has, moreover, been held above that the EURO may legitimately be regarded as a single event of major importance for United
         Kingdom society, as the statistics for the ‘non-gala’ matches of the EURO and those not involving a national team of the United
         Kingdom confirm rather than invalidate the assessment referred to in recitals 6 and 18 of the contested decision (see paragraphs
         123 to 141 above).
      
      198    Contrary, therefore, to UEFA’s assertions, the Commission did not act inconsistently or irrationally and did not infringe
         the principle of equal treatment.
      
      199    The eighth plea in law must accordingly be rejected.
      
       Consideration of UEFA’s request for measures of organisation of procedure
      200    The assessments of the various pleas put forward by UEFA mean that it is not necessary to adopt the measures of organisation
         of procedure requested by it (see paragraph 19 above).
      
      201    In that regard, it should be observed that, as was held in the course of the examination of the pleas put forward by UEFA,
         none of the arguments in support of which UEFA wishes to rely on evidence which may be found in documents the production of
         which it requests, are such as to affect the lawfulness of the contested decision.
      
      202    In those circumstances, the request for measures of organisation of procedure must be rejected and the action as a whole must
         be dismissed.
      
       Costs
      203    Under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been
         applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since UEFA has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs in
         accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission.
      
      204    The Kingdom of Belgium and the United Kingdom are to bear their own costs, pursuant to Article 87(4) of the Rules of Procedure.
      
      On those grounds,
      THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
      hereby:
      1.      Dismisses the action;
      2.      Orders the Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European
            Commission;
      3.      Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.
      
               Forwood
            
            
               Truchot
            
            
               Schwarcz
            
         Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 17 February 2011.
      [Signatures]
      
      Table of contents
      
      Legal context
      Background to the case and contested decision
      Procedure and forms of order sought
      Law
      Admissibility
      Arguments of the parties
      Findings of the Court
      Substance
      The second plea: failure to state reasons
      – Arguments of the parties
      – Findings of the Court
      The first plea: infringement of Article 3a(1) of Directive 89/552
      – Arguments of the parties
      – Findings of the Court
      The third plea: infringement of Article 3a(2) of Directive 89/552
      – Arguments of the parties
      – Findings of the Court
      The fifth plea: infringement of the Treaty provisions relating to freedom to provide services
      – Arguments of the parties
      – Findings of the Court
      The fourth plea: infringement of the provisions of the Treaty on competition
      – Arguments of the parties
      – Findings of the Court
      The sixth plea: infringement of UEFA’s property rights
      – Arguments of the parties
      – Findings of the Court
      The seventh plea: infringement of the principle of proportionality
      – Arguments of the parties
      – Findings of the Court
      The eighth plea: infringement of the principle of equal treatment
      – Arguments of the parties
      – Findings of the Court
      Consideration of UEFA’s request for measures of organisation of procedure
      Costs
      *  Language of the case: English.