On 18 July 2013 the European Court of Justice upheld the General Court's judgment finding that in Belgium football matches in the final stage of the World Cup, and in the UK matches in the final stage of the World Cup and European Cup, were correctly designated as events of major importance for society ("Listed Events").

The "Television Without Frontiers" Directive (now "AVMS") provides that Member States can draw up a list of events of major importance for society that must not be broadcast exclusively on pay-TV. The objective is to ensure that a substantial proportion of the public is not deprived of watching such events on free-to-air TV.

In Belgium the list included all matches in the final stage of the football World Cup, while the UK included all matches in the final stage of the World Cup and European Cup. The lists were sent to, and approved by, the European Commission.

UEFA and FIFA appealed the Commission's decision, in particular on the basis that matches not involving the home team are not of major importance to society.

In 2011 the General Court upheld the Commission's decision, in particular on the basis of the wide discretion of Member States to designate the lists, and in recognition that in football tournaments, matches not involving the home team are important since they can impact the home team's progress.

UEFA and FIFA then appealed the judgment to the European Court of Justice. The Court confirmed the legal principle that although Listed Events are an obstacle to the EU principles of freedom to provide services, freedom of establishment, competition and right to property, they are justified because they protect the right to information. The Member States' discretion is wide and the Commission's scope for review is limited.

The Court accepted that some matches in the final stages of World Cup and European Cup championships could be more or less important than others to society. However, in this instance the evidence showed that all the matches in the final stages of the two tournaments attracted sufficient attention from the public to qualify as Listed Events.

Finally, the Court stated that, contrary to the findings of the General Court, Member States are obliged to communicate to the Commission their reasons for designating particular events as Listed Events. However, Member States' justification, and the grounds given by the Commission for its decision, can be succinct (there is no need for detailed viewing data).

The judgment confirms the wide discretion Member States have to designate Listed Events. The EBU considers that the Listed Events rules may become even more important to ensure universal access to events of national importance in a converged media world, where the most valuable rights may frequently be bought by global, vertically integrated conglomerates for their subscription viewers. In this regard, the Listed Events provisions should be read in a platform-neutral way to ensure that they are not circumvented, for example by events being shown exclusively on subscription-based internet platforms.