23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/16

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

(Case C-250/06) ( 1 )

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

(2008/C 51/26)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

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

Defendant: État Belge

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

Re:

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

Operative part of the judgment

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

—

pursues an aim in the general interest, such as the retention, pursuant to the cultural policy of that Member State, of the pluralist character of the television programmes available in that territory, and

—

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

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

( 1 ) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006 .