CELEX: 62019CA0087
Language: en
Date: 2019-12-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-87/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — TV Play Baltic AS v Lietuvos radijo ir televizijos komisija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) — Article 2(m) — Provision of an electronic communications network — Concept — Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) — Article 31(1) — ‘Must carry’ obligation to broadcast specified radio and television channels — Operator offering a package of channels via satellite — Reasonable ‘must carry’ obligations — Conditions — Article 56 TFEU — Proportionality)

17.2.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 54/10
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — TV Play Baltic AS v Lietuvos radijo ir televizijos komisija
      (Case C-87/19) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) - Article 2(m) - Provision of an electronic communications network - Concept - Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) - Article 31(1) - ‘Must carry’ obligation to broadcast specified radio and television channels - Operator offering a package of channels via satellite - Reasonable ‘must carry’ obligations - Conditions - Article 56 TFEU - Proportionality)
      (2020/C 54/12)
      Language of the case: Lithuanian
      
         Referring court
      
      Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: TV Play Baltic AS
      
         Defendant: Lietuvos radijo ir televizijos komisija
      
         Intervener in support of the defendant: Lietuvos nacionalinis radijas ir televizija VšĮ
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Article 2(m) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that activities of television rebroadcasting over satellite networks owned by third parties are not covered by the concept of ‘provision of an electronic communications network’, for the purposes of that provision;
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Article 31(1) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding Member States from imposing a ‘must carry’ obligation to broadcast a television programme on undertakings which rebroadcast, by means of satellite networks owned by third parties, television channels protected by a conditional access system and offer their customers television programme packages;
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the Member States from imposing a ‘must carry’ obligation to broadcast a television channel free of charge on undertakings which rebroadcast, by means of satellite networks owned by third parties, television programmes protected by a conditional access system and offer their customers television programme packages, provided, first, that that obligation to broadcast allows a significant number or percentage of end users of all of the means of broadcasting television programmes to access the channel benefiting from that obligation and, secondly, that account is taken of the geographical distribution of the end users of the services supplied by the operator on whom that ‘must carry’ obligation is imposed, of the fact that the latter rebroadcasts that channel unencrypted and of the fact that that channel is freely available online and via the terrestrial broadcasting network, which it is for the referring court to verify.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.