Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2179
Date: 2014-09-09
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Telecommunications
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Austria

summary published in OJ 2013 C 224, p. 12). 8 – Loc.cit., paragraphs 7 to 11. 9 – Case C‑426/05 Tele2 Telecommunication, EU:C:2008:103. 10 – See Case 33/76 Rewe-Zentralfinanz and Rewe-Zentral, EU:C:1976:188, paragraph 5, and Case C‑583/11 P Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v Parliament and Council, EU:C:2013:625, paragraph 102. 11 – .Tele2 Telecommunication, EU:C:2008:103, paragraph 27. 12 – Loc.cit., paragraph 30. 13 – Loc.cit., paragraphs 33 and 48. 14 – Loc.cit., paragraphs 34, 36 and 39. 15 – Council Directive 90/387/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the establishment of the internal market for telecommunications services through the implementation of open network provision (OJ 1990 L 192, p. 1), as amended by Directive 97/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 295, p. 23). 16 – Case C‑55/06 Arcor, EU:C:2008:244, paragraphs 175 to 177. 17 – It follows from the premiss that the principle of effective judicial protection requires Member States to ensure protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. See, for example, Case C‑432/05 Unibet, EU:C:2007:163, paragraphs 37 and 38. 18 – Judgment of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof of 26 March 2008, VwSlg 17.406 A/2008. 19 – .Tele2 Telecommunication, EU:C:2008:103, paragraph 36. 20 – .Arcor, EU:C:2008:244, paragraph 177. 21 – Likewise, the locus standi of private undertakings on the basis of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU is not linked to the need to demonstrate that an individual right has been adversely affected but rather, in the light of the situations contemplated in that provision, to the fact that the act in question has a direct and individual effect on the applicants’ legal position. 22 – See Tele2 Telecommunication, EU:C:2008:103, paragraph 36. 23 – Regarding the various concepts of individual public-law rights, see A. Wróbel, Prawo podmiotowe publiczne, in: System prawa administracyjnego, Vol. 1 — Instytucje prawa administracyjnego, Instytut Nauk Prawnych PAN, Warsaw, C.H. Beck 2010, pp. 307 to 344. 24 – See Case C‑380/05 Centro Europa 7, EU:C:2008:59, paragraph 81, and Case C‑227/07 Commission v Poland, EU:C:2008:620, paragraphs 62 and 63. 25 – See Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C‑95/04 P British Airways v Commission, EU:C:2006:133, point 68, and Cases C‑501/06 P, C‑513/06 P, C‑515/06 P and C‑519/06 P GlaxoSmithKline Service and Others v Commission and Others, EU:C:2009:610, paragraph 63. 26 – See Case 169/84 COFAZ and Others v Commission, EU:C:1986:42, paragraphs 22 to 25, and Case C‑78/03 P Commission v Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum, EU:C:2005:761, paragraphs 37 and 70. 27 – See Case T‑3/93 Air France v Commission, EU:T:1994:36, paragraph 82; Case T‑290/94 Kayserberg v Commission, EU:T:1997:186; Case T‑158/00 ARD v Commission, EU:T:2003:246, paragraphs 78 and 95; and Case T‑114/02 BaByliss v Commission, EU:T:2003:100, paragraphs 96 to 100. 28 – Regarding the justification for fees for rights to use frequencies, see C‑375/11 Belgacom and Others, EU:C:2013:185, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited. 29 – See P. Nihoul, P. Rodford, EU Electronic Communications Law, Oxford 2011, pp. 101 and 116. 30 – See, to that effect, BaByliss v Commission, EU:T:2003:100, paragraph 100.