Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:04:43.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Beyond Mobistar” – Assessment of the Deterrent Effect of Direct Charges to Telephone Subscribers under Article 30(2) of the Universal Service Directive

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Markus Berliner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Article 30(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive [USD]) is to be interpreted as obliging the national regulatory authority to take account of the costs incurred by mobile telephone network operators in implementing the number portability service when it assesses whether the direct charge to subscribers for the use of that service is a disincentive. However, it retains the power to fix the maximum amount of that charge levied by operators at a level below the costs incurred by them, when a charge calculated only on the basis of those costs is liable to dissuade users from making use of the portability facility (official headnote).

Type
Case Notes
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 279 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Judgment of 1 July 2010.

2 OJ 2002 L 108/51, last amended by Directive 2009/136/EC, OJ 2009 L 337/11.

3 See recital 40 in the preamble to the USD.

4 Ibid., para. 24.

5 Ibid., para. 30.

6 See ibid., para. 16.

7 See Opinion of Advocate General Bot of 15 April 2010 in Case C-99/09, Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. Z o.o v. Prezes Urz du Komunikacji Elektronicznej, para. 35.

8 Case C-438/04, Mobistar, para. 28.

9 Ibid., para. 29.

10 Ibid., para. 37.

11 Para. 22.

12 Paras. 24–25.

13 Paras. 26–27.

14 See Case C-438/04, Mobistar, para. 37.

15 See Bot in Case C-99/09, Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa, para. 36.

16 Ibid., para. 59.

17 Para. 21.

18 Bot in Case C-99/09, Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa, para. 35.

19 Ibid., para. 37.

20 See Case C-438/04, Mobistar, para. 28; Bot in Case C-99/09, Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa, paras. 37, 59.

21 OJ 1997 L 199/32.

22 But also see Bot in Case C-99/09, Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa, para. 59, who leads back the mentioned paragraph from the Mobistar judgment to this.

23 See ibid., para. 38.

24 Para. 24 insofar refers to Bot in Case C-99/09, Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa, paras. 52, 53, 55.

25 Bot in Case C-99/09, Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa, paras. 5, 72.