# C_2010328EN.01000201.xml

| 4.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/2 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-222/08)( 1 )

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/22/EC (‘Universal Service’ Directive) - Electronic communications - Networks and services - Article 12 - Costing of universal service obligations - Social component of universal service - Article 13 - Financing of universal service obligations - Determination of whether an ‘unfair burden’ exists)

2010/C 328/02

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and A. Nijenhuis, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne and M. Jacobs, Agents, assisted by S. Depré, lawyer)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition of Articles 12(1), 13(1) and Annex IV, Part I, 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) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) — Social component of universal service — Designation of undertakings — Provision of particular tariff conditions — Lack of transparency

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that,
—
first, by failing to take into consideration, in the calculation of the net cost of provision of the social component of universal service, the market benefits, including intangible benefits, accruing to the undertakings responsible, and —
second, by making a general finding on the basis of the calculation of the net costs of the erstwhile sole provider of universal service that all undertakings now responsible for the provision of universal service are in fact subject to an unfair burden on account of that provision and by having done so without carrying out a specific assessment both of the net cost which the provision of universal service represents for each operator concerned and of all the characteristics particular to each operator, including the quality of its equipment or its economic and financial situation, | — | first, by failing to take into consideration, in the calculation of the net cost of provision of the social component of universal service, the market benefits, including intangible benefits, accruing to the undertakings responsible, and | — | second, by making a general finding on the basis of the calculation of the net costs of the erstwhile sole provider of universal service that all undertakings now responsible for the provision of universal service are in fact subject to an unfair burden on account of that provision and by having done so without carrying out a specific assessment both of the net cost which the provision of universal service represents for each operator concerned and of all the characteristics particular to each operator, including the quality of its equipment or its economic and financial situation, |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | first, by failing to take into consideration, in the calculation of the net cost of provision of the social component of universal service, the market benefits, including intangible benefits, accruing to the undertakings responsible, and | | | | |
| — | second, by making a general finding on the basis of the calculation of the net costs of the erstwhile sole provider of universal service that all undertakings now responsible for the provision of universal service are in fact subject to an unfair burden on account of that provision and by having done so without carrying out a specific assessment both of the net cost which the provision of universal service represents for each operator concerned and of all the characteristics particular to each operator, including the quality of its equipment or its economic and financial situation, | | | | |

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12(1) and 13(1) 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);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| -- | ----------------------------------------- |

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay two thirds of the costs and orders the European Commission to pay one third of the costs. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

---

( 1 )  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.

---