Does language have a place in the European market?

Europe took the market as the starting point on its path towards union in a bid to create a closer, more solid union among the countries. The market is taken as the basis of the union, yet many fear that it may have become the aim on the road to union when it was only supposed to be the basis.

However, we have to admit that the needs of the single market in this evolution have held sway, because they have established the dividing line between what can be done and what cannot be done.

But there are strong political identities forming the foundations of this Europe, and at the same time, there are so many cultures and languages often seeking protection.

Protecting the needs of specific cultures alongside market needs has not always been easy on the road to European Union. In only a few cases have limitations been placed on market needs. They are no more than exceptions. In most cases, the market has shown its all-powerful strength, strength without limitations.

On the road to European Union, it is the judges who, in general, have done the greatest and most attractive work. It is they who have, without doubt, been among the biggest players in what has been achieved, both in the results that have been to our liking and in the ones which have not, because on that road the market has been put first.

This being the case, the reader will have no difficulty understanding that we have to bear in mind especially the judgment handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Luxembourg a few months ago, on December 13, to be precise, in the United Pan-Europe Communications Belgium case (case C-250/06).

Brussels Region has two official languages. As a result, the authorities have imposed an indispensable obligation on companies that want to offer cable television services: they must offer programmes of TV stations linked to the two speech communities, and also of those which have obtained the must-carry status.

In this case, some private television broadcasters cast doubt on the obligation imposed by the authorities in Brussels Region, because their freedom to offer services was apparently being infringed. This seems to indicate that one of the most solid bases of the single market of the European communities has been infringed. Yet in this case the Luxembourg Court has taken the bilingual nature of Brussels Region into consideration.

The Court of Justice tells us that the obligations imposed to protect the nature and special cultural characteristics of speech communities are legal in a region of this kind, even though they may restrict company freedom. The authorities can force those who wish to offer television services to offer programmes linked to the two speech communities. The reason is that the special cultural characteristics and bilingual nature of the society are thus guaranteed.

It seems that languages can have a place on the road to European Union, even if insatiable market needs have to adapt for this purpose. Only the future will tell whether the Court of Justice will continue along these lines or whether it will adapt to the all-powerful market once and for all.


Alberto López Basaguren
Professor of Constitutional Right in the UPV