24.8.2015

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/21

(Case C-275/15)

(2015/C 279/26)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: ITV Broadcasting Limited, ITV2 Limited, ITV Digital Channels Limited, Channel Four Television Corp., 4 Ventures Limited, Channel 5 Broadcasting Limited, ITV Studios Limited

Defendants: TVCatchup Limited, Media Resources Limited, TVCatchup (UK) Limited

Interveners: The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Virgin Media Limited

Questions referred

On the interpretation of Article 9 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (1) (‘the Directive’), specifically of the phrase ‘This Directive shall be without prejudice in particular to … access to cable of broadcasting services’:

1.Does the quoted phrase permit the continued application of a provision of national law with the scope of ‘cable’ as defined by national law, or is the scope of this part of Article 9 determined by a meaning of ‘cable’ that is defined by EU law?

2.If ‘cable’ in Article 9 is defined by EU law, what is that meaning? In particular:

a)Does it have a technologically specific meaning, restricted to traditional cable networks operated by conventional cable service providers?

b)Alternatively, does it have a technologically neutral meaning which includes functionally similar services transmitted via the internet?

c)In either case, does it include transmission of microwave energy between fixed terrestrial points?

3.Does the quoted phrase apply (1) to provisions which require cable networks to retransmit certain broadcasts or (2) to provisions which permit the retransmission by — cable of broadcasts (a) where the retransmissions are simultaneous and limited to areas in which the broadcasts were made for reception and/or (b) where the retransmissions are of broadcasts on channels which are subject to certain public service obligations?

4.If the scope of ‘cable’ within Article 9 is defined by national law, is the provision of national law subject to the EU principles of proportionality and fair balance between the rights of copyright owners, cable owners and the public interest?

5.Is Article 9 limited to the provisions of national law in force at the date on which the Directive was agreed, the date it entered into force or its last date for implementation, or does it also apply to subsequent provisions of national law which concern access to cable of broadcasting services?

* Language of the case: English.

(1) OJ L 167, p. 10.