This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010CN0134
Case C-134/10: Action brought on 15 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
Case C-134/10: Action brought on 15 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
Case C-134/10: Action brought on 15 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
OJ C 161, 19.6.2010, p. 18–18
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
19.6.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 161/18 |
Action brought on 15 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-134/10)
(2010/C 161/25)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and C. Vrignon, acting as Agents)
Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
Form of order sought
|
— |
declare that, by failing to transpose correctly Article 31 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), (1) the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
|
— |
order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The European Commission raises three complaints in support of its action, which alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality by the contested national legislation, in particular with regard to the procedure and criteria leading to the award of must-carry status to radio and television networks.
First, it alleges that the defendant has failed to establish in a clear and foreseeable manner the objectives of general interest which justify the award of must-carry status. Broadcasters are therefore not in a position to ascertain in advance the nature and the scope of the conditions to be satisfied and the public service obligations it is required to observe.
Second, the Commission complains of the lack of transparency with regard to the award procedure, of the increased discretion conferred on the authorities in that the national legislation seems to impose on the bodies concerned the obligation to transmit all of the channels which it transmits and not only those channels pursuing the required objectives of general interest, as well as the discriminatory effect of the requirement as to establishment of those bodies in the national territory.
Third, the applicant alleges that the scope of Article 31 of the ‘Universal Service Directive’ was ignored with regard to making the broadcasting subject to the existence of a significant number of end-users of broadcast networks.