The judges of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled in a judgment of Thursday 4 July in Case C-622/17 that a Member State may, on grounds of public order, impose an obligation to broadcast or retransmit a television channel from another Member State only in pay-to-view packages, provided that the retransmission of the channel is not prohibited.
A British company broadcasts the NTV Mir Lithuania television channel, which is intended for a Lithuanian audience and whose programmes are mainly in Russian. In 2016, the Lithuanian Radio and Television Commission adopted a measure requiring operators distributing channels to Lithuanian consumers by cable or Internet to broadcast NTV Mir Lithuania only in pay-to-view packages for 12 months. This was on the grounds that one of the programmes contained information inciting hostility to and hatred of the Baltic States on grounds of nationality.
The British company then brought an action for annulment before the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court on the grounds that this decision violated Directive 2010/13/EU on Audiovisual Media Services. This requires Member States to ensure freedom of reception and not to hinder the retransmission on their territory of broadcasts from other Member States for reasons such as measures against incitement to hatred.
The Lithuanian Court referred the matter to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on whether the decision in question fell within the scope of the Directive in question.
In his Opinion of 28 February, Advocate-General Saugmandsgaard Øe considered that, for reasons of general interest, a State could require distributors established in another Member State to organise their offers in such a way that certain channels were included only in specific pay-to-view packages (see EUROPE 12204/28).
The judges of the Court find, first, that a national measure pursuing an objective of public order and governing the distribution of a television channel to consumers in the Member State of reception does not infringe that Directive as long as it does not prevent the retransmission of the channel.
They add that the measure in question was taken in order to preserve public order. The judges note that the Lithuanian authority took this decision because of the false information contained in an NTV Mir Lithuania programme, which was characterised by hostility and hatred against the Baltic States based on nationality, in particular regarding the collaboration of Lithuanians and Latvians in connection with the Holocaust. Thus, the Court considers that the measure does indeed pursue a public order objective.
It is also made clear that the contested decision only governs the distribution of NTV Mir Lithuania to Lithuanian consumers. But the retransmission of the channel is in no way prohibited.
Therefore, the judges consider that the measure taken by the Lithuanian authority does not fall within the scope of Directive 2010/13/EU. (Original version in French by Lucas Tripoteau)