EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022CN0376
Case C-376/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 June 2022 — Google Ireland Limited, Tik Tok Technology Limited and Meta Platforms Ireland Limited v Kommunikationsbehörde Austria (Komm Austria)
Case C-376/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 June 2022 — Google Ireland Limited, Tik Tok Technology Limited and Meta Platforms Ireland Limited v Kommunikationsbehörde Austria (Komm Austria)
Case C-376/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 June 2022 — Google Ireland Limited, Tik Tok Technology Limited and Meta Platforms Ireland Limited v Kommunikationsbehörde Austria (Komm Austria)
OJ C 359, 19.9.2022, p. 29–30
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
19.9.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 359/29 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 June 2022 — Google Ireland Limited, Tik Tok Technology Limited and Meta Platforms Ireland Limited v Kommunikationsbehörde Austria (Komm Austria)
(Case C-376/22)
(2022/C 359/33)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Verwaltungsgerichtshof
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellants on a point of law: Google Ireland Limited, Tik Tok Technology Limited and Meta Platforms Ireland Limited
Defendant: Kommunikationsbehörde Austria (Komm Austria)
Questions referred
|
1. |
Must Article 3(4)(a)(ii) of Directive 2000/31/EC, (1) be interpreted as meaning that a measure taken against a ‘given information society service’ can also be understood as a legislative measure relating to a general category of certain information society services (such as communications platforms), or does the existence of a measure within the meaning of that provision require that a decision be taken in relation to a specific individual case (for example, concerning a communications platform identified by name)? |
|
2. |
Must Article 3(5) of Directive 2000/31 be interpreted as meaning that failure to notify the measure taken to the Commission and the Member State in which the platform is established, which, under that provision, must be notified ‘in the shortest possible time’ (ex post facto) in the case of urgency, means that — following the expiry of a sufficient period for the (ex post facto) notification — that measure must not be applied to a given service? |
|
3. |
Does Article 28a(1) of Directive 2010/13/EU, (2) as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/1808, (3) preclude the application of a measure as provided for in Article 3(4) of Directive 2000/31 where it does not relate to broadcasts and user-generated videos made available on a video-sharing platform? |
(1) Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).
(2) Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1).
(3) Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) in view of changing market realities (OJ 2018 L 303, p. 69).