Request for a preliminary ruling regarding Article 3 (1) (2) Audiovisual Media Services Directive

Case C-622/17 Baltic Media Alliance. Request for a preliminary ruling. Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Lithuania).

Unofficial translation and summary: "Applicant (Baltic Media Alliance Ltd) is a broadcasting organization operating the television channel NTV Mir Lithuania and possesses a permit from the competent authority of the United Kingdom (OFCOM). The applicant is based in the United Kingdom and broadcasts programmes in Lithuania. An expert from the monitoring service of the Lithuanian Radio and Television Commission (hereafter: CRTL) drew up a monitoring report in which she came to the conclusion that material shown by NTV Mir Lithuania was subject to the Lithuanian broadcast ban, since the programme encouraged hatred on grounds of nationality. The CRTL imposed on broadcasting organizations to distribute the television channel NTV Mir Lithuania exclusively as part of television programme packages that are only available with an additional payment. The CRTL later withdrew its decision of and decided to act in accordance with the procedures of Article 3 (2) of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. The applicant brought an action before the referring court seeking the annulment of the first CRTL decision; this contested decision would be contrary to Article 3 (2) of the Directive. The defendant, the CRTL, maintains that the appeal must be dismissed since it amended the contested decision by later decision. 

Preliminary questions (unofficial):

1. Are the provisions of Article 3 (1) and (2) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain legal and administrative provisions in Member States concerning the offering of audiovisual media services only apply in cases where a host Member State intends to suspend the broadcasting and/or transmission of television programmes, or do they also apply to other measures of a host Member State which limit the free reception and broadcasting of programs in any way?
2. Must Recital 8 and Article 3 (1) and (2) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain laws, regulations and administrative provisions in Member States concerning the offering of audiovisual media services be interpreted as precluding a Member State - where it has established that material referred to in Article 6 of that Directive has been made public, broadcasted and distributed in a television programme transmitted and/or distributed from a Member State of the European Union via the Internet - without the conditions of Article 3 (2) of that Directive having been fulfilled, to take a decision as referred to in Article 33 (11) and Article 33 (12) (1) of the Lithuanian Law on information to the public, that is to say, a decision authorizing rebroadcasters operating in the territory of the host to provide the distribution of television programmes and/or individual programmes via the internet, the obligation is provisionally made to decide that the television programme is only passed on and/or distributed via the Internet as part of television program packages that are only available for an additional fee?"