Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2026:353
Date: 2026-04-23
Language of the case: Slovenian

Summary C-164/25 – 1 
Case C-164/25 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
27 February 2025 
Referring court: 
Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
21 January 2025 
Applicant: 
T – 2 družba za ustvarjanje, razvoj in trženje elektronskih 
komunikacij in opreme d.o.o. 
Defendant: 
TELEKOM SLOVENIJE, d.d. 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Decision on an appeal on a point of law brought before the Vrhovno sodišče 
Republike Slovenije (Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia) (‘the Supreme 
Court’). The case in the main proceedings concerns the granting of access to the 
existing infrastructure by the applicant for the benefit of the defendant, a service 
provider in the telecommunications, information and media sector. The Supreme 
Court must rule on where to draw the line between the jurisdiction of the courts 
and the competence of administrative bodies in relation to decisions on operators’ 
requests to access existing infrastructure. To that end, it must interpret provisions 
of national law in accordance with provisions of EU law, which, in its opinion, 
lend themselves to different interpretations. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Interpretation of provisions of EU law; Article 267 TFEU 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-164/25 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Must Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 15 May 2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed 
electronic communications networks – and in particular the phrase ‘without 
prejudice to the possibility of any party to refer the case to a court’, in the 
second subparagraph of Article 3(5) of that directive – be interpreted as 
precluding national legislation under which a network operator has the right 
to submit a request for the settlement of a dispute concerning access to 
existing physical infrastructure either before the dispute settlement body or 
before an ordinary court? 
2. Must the second subparagraph of Article 3(5) of Directive 2014/61/EU of 
the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on measures to 
reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications 
networks be interpreted, in the light of the principles of equivalence and 
effectiveness and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union, as precluding a national procedural rule under which 
dispute settlement proceedings before the national dispute settlement body 
are discontinued in the event that one of the parties, in the course of the 
dispute settlement proceedings before that body, institutes proceedings with 
the same subject matter before the competent court? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Directive 2014/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 
2014 on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic 
communications networks (OJ 2014 L 155, p. 1) (‘Directive 2014/61’), and in 
particular the second subparagraph of Article 3(5) and Article 10; 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), in 
particular Article 47. 
Case-law of the Court of Justice relied on 
Judgment of 11 July 2024, Skarb Państwa (Payment not significantly delayed or 
small claim) (C-279/23, EU:C:2024:605, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited); 
Judgment of 21 February 2008, Tele2 Telecommunication (C-426/05, 
EU:C:2008:103, paragraph 51 and the case-law cited); 
Judgment of 18 October 2012, Pelati (C-603/10, EU:C:2012:639, paragraph 23 
and the case-law cited); 
Judgment of 6 October 2021, Consorzio Italian Management and Catania 
Multiservizi and Catania Multiservizi (C-561/19, EU:C:2021:799); 
TELEKOM SLOVENIJE 
 
3 
Judgment of 6 October 1982, CILFIT v Ministero della Sanità (283/81, 
EU:C:1982:335). 
Provisions of national law and case-law relied on 
Zakon o elektronskih komunikacijah (law on electronic communications) 
(ZEKom-1), in particular Articles 93 (access to existing physical infrastructure), 
192 (judicial protection), 217 (jurisdiction relating to dispute settlement), 218 
(dispute settlement proceedings), 220.a (settlement of disputes to reduce the costs 
of electronic communications networks); 
Zakon o elektronskih komunikacijah (law on electronic communications) 
(ZEKom-2), in particular Article 283 (dispute settlement proceedings); 
Zakon o pravdnem postopku (general law on civil litigation) (ZPP), in particular 
Articles 1 and 181 (action for a declaration); 
Zakon o splošnem upravnem postopku (general law on administrative 
proceedings) (ZUP), in particular Article 2; 
Zakon o upravnem sporu (general law on administrative disputes) (ZUS-1), in 
particular Articles 1 and 2. 
National case-law: there is no body of case-law of the Supreme Court on the 
questions of interpretation of national rules governing where to draw the line 
between the jurisdiction of the courts and the competence of administrative bodies 
in relation to decisions on operators’ requests to access existing physical 
infrastructure. In the lower courts, opinion is divided on such questions. 
According to one line of case-law, dispute settlement proceedings before national 
regulatory bodies are alternative dispute resolution proceedings – which do not 
preclude the jurisdiction of the courts – and the provisions of Directive 2014/61 
expressly prohibit any infringement of the right of the parties to submit the dispute 
to a court. According to another line of case-law, the provisions of that directive 
cannot be interpreted as meaning that dispute settlement proceedings before the 
national dispute settlement body represent an alternative for the resolution of 
conflicts. After the entry into force of the ZEKom-2, a lower court, ruling in 
another case between the same two parties to the proceedings, upheld a plea 
relating to the jurisdiction of the courts and rejected the document instituting the 
proceedings on the ground that it was an administrative matter which was not 
within the jurisdiction of the courts. As regards the phrase in the second 
subparagraph of Article 3(5) of Directive 2014/61 ‘without prejudice to the 
possibility of any party to refer the case to a court’ (in the Slovenian version: ‘brez 
poseganja v možnost katere koli stranke, da zadevo predloži sodišču’), the court 
accepted the argument that it was merely an option which was not governed by 
that directive, since the directive gave no indication of when the option would 
arise. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-164/25 
 
4  
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 In the present commercial dispute, on 6 September 2021, the applicant brought 
legal proceedings against the defendant, relying on two applications for a 
declaration finding that the defendant has no rights and that the applicant is not 
obliged to grant the defendant access to its existing physical infrastructure (i) in 
Šenčur and Srednja vas, near Šenčur, and (ii) in Primskovo, as shown in the 
defendant’s plans. In the document that instituted the proceedings, the applicant 
submitted that the defendant is a service provider in the telecommunications, 
information and media sector. 
2 Prior to the commencement of the proceedings at first instance, the defendant had 
submitted a request for the settlement of a dispute between operators with the 
Agencija za komunikacijska omrežja in storitve Republike Slovenije 
(Communications Services and Networks Agency of the Republic of Slovenia) 
(‘the Agency’), claiming that the Agency should order the applicant to grant 
access to its infrastructure. When the legal proceedings were instituted, the 
Agency had not yet decided on the request for the settlement of the dispute 
between operators. In the civil proceedings, the defendant raised a plea of lack of 
jurisdiction, arguing that it was an administrative dispute which did not come 
under the jurisdiction of the courts. On 2 November 2021, the Agency issued an 
order discontinuing the proceedings for the settlement of the dispute between the 
two parties. 
3 The court of first instance issued an order dismissing the plea relating to 
jurisdiction, which the defendant had raised in its response. The court declared 
that the action was based on Article 93 ZEKom-1. It held that the request of the 
applicant was inextricably linked to the answer to the question of whether it had 
acted lawfully in refusing to comply with the obligation to make a proposal to the 
defendant for joint use of the physical infrastructure. If the document instituting 
the proceedings lodged by the applicant was upheld, that would mean that it was 
not obliged to make an offer to the defendant and vice versa. Since the decision in 
the present case will determine whether a binding legal relationship is established 
between the parties to the main proceedings, which comes under the jurisdiction 
of the courts (in litigation proceedings) (Article 1 ZPP), the defendant’s plea was 
dismissed. 
4 The court of second instance upheld the appeal brought by the defendant and 
varied the contested order to the effect that it upheld the plea [of lack of 
jurisdiction] and dismissed the action at first instance. The court accepted the 
argument that a literal interpretation would imply that ZEKom-1 does not exclude 
the jurisdiction of the courts, or that, under national rules, the jurisdiction of the 
courts always takes precedence over the administrative jurisdiction of the Agency. 
However, unlike the court of first instance, the court of appeal concluded that the 
teleological and contextual interpretation of the provisions of ZEKom-1 must also 
be taken into account. In that respect, it referred to the purpose of Directive 
2014/61 to promote the creation of high-speed electronic communications 
TELEKOM SLOVENIJE 
 
5 
networks in the internal market. In the light of that purpose, a special national 
body for the settlement of disputes relating to access has been designated, while 
the periods within which the national dispute settlement body must reach a 
decision have also been set. For that reason, the court of second instance 
concluded that a strict interpretation of the wording, in which the decision of a 
court takes precedence, is contrary to the objective pursued by the (EU) 
legislature. It also clarified that the Agency acts as a body with authoritative 
powers when it decides on the conditions for the refusal of access or determines 
the pecuniary consideration for access. Whereas in the case of ZEKom-1, these 
are provisions of an administrative nature, the court ruled that a mandatory legal 
relationship did not exist between the two parties, but that it was an administrative 
matter which did not come under the jurisdiction of the courts in litigation 
proceedings under Article 1 ZPP. 
5 At the request of the applicant, the Supreme Court has granted leave to bring an 
appeal on a point of law concerning whether the decision of the court of second 
instance is correct that the dispute in relation to which the applicant brought the 
action at first instance does not come under the jurisdiction of the courts. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
6 In the appeal on a point of law brought before the Supreme Court by the applicant 
against the order of the court of second instance, the applicant relies on grounds of 
the misapplication of substantive rules and material breaches of procedural rules 
before the court of second instance. In that appeal, it submits that the provisions of 
Articles 218 and 220.a ZEKom-1 are perfectly clear and establish the jurisdiction 
of the Agency only in the event that no judicial proceedings have been initiated. 
The court of second instance disregarded those rules and failed to provide any 
other interpretation of the wording of the abovementioned provisions of ZEKom-
1. Similarly, it failed to clarify in which cases those provisions would be relevant. 
The applicant also refers to Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of 
Slovenia, according to which the power to determine rights and obligations 
belongs in principle to the courts. 
7 The applicant maintains that the Agency has jurisdiction only in the event that a 
dispute is not submitted to an (ordinary) court for a decision. It refers to the 
second subparagraph of Article 3(5) of Directive 2014/61, according to which the 
decision of the national regulatory body may not affect the right of any party to 
refer the case to a court. It claims that it is clear from both the objective and the 
wording of that directive that the jurisdiction of the courts takes precedence over 
the jurisdiction of the national regulatory body. The proceedings before the 
Agency constituted a sort of alternative dispute resolution procedure, which was 
the objective pursued by Articles 218(4) and 220.a(3) ZEKom-1. The applicant 
also disagrees with the view of the court of second instance that the parties were 
entitled to seek a judicial review of the Agency’s decision, since in its opinion the 
scope of such judicial review is limited. It contends that the court of second 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-164/25 
 
6  
instance did not clarify which legal rule it applied in characterising the dispute as 
an administrative dispute. 
8 In its defence, the defendant disputes the applicant’s argument that the 
proceedings before the Agency are an alternative dispute resolution procedure. It 
refers to the legislative changes introduced by the new ZEKom-2, which had 
entered into force in the meantime. The current version of Article 283(8) ZEKom-
2 provides that, in the event of judicial proceedings being instituted, the 
proceedings before the Agency are only stayed and are not discontinued. 
Accordingly, the Agency had jurisdiction ex lege to settle the dispute between two 
operators, considering that such a decision would impose commercial and 
technical requirements, which in principle do not form part of the operative part of 
a judicial decision. It was the Agency’s task under public law to ensure equal and 
non-discriminatory terms, which is why such an outcome could not depend on the 
success of the parties in the judicial proceedings. Furthermore, the defendant may 
not rely, in general, on an application for a declaration. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
9 The applicant bases the application at first instance, seeking a declaration that the 
defendant has no right of access and that the applicant is not obliged to grant the 
defendant access to its existing physical infrastructure, on the provisions of 
ZEKom-1, transposing Article 3 of Directive 2014/61. Under Article 93(7) 
ZEKom-1, the Agency must determine a dispute between an infrastructure 
operator and a network operator at the request of one of the parties in accordance 
with the procedure laid down in Article 220.a of that law, which also transposes 
Directive 2014/61. Article 220.a(2) ZEKom-1 provides that the settlement of 
disputes does not prejudice any jurisdiction of the courts. However, paragraph 3 of 
that article states that if the dispute is not the subject of judicial proceedings, the 
Agency must determine it by applying Article 218(3) to (5) of the 
abovementioned law. Article 218(4) ZEKom-1 provides that the dispute 
settlement proceedings before the Agency are discontinued if one of the parties, in 
the course of the dispute settlement proceedings before the Agency, institutes 
judicial proceedings with the same subject matter before the competent court, or 
withdraws the dispute settlement request previously submitted. The wording of 
Article 220.a(2) and (3) and Article 218(4) ZEKom-1 allows several different 
interpretations. 
10 The Supreme Court must interpret the abovementioned provisions of national law 
in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 3(5) of Directive 2014/61, 
and in particular the phrase ‘without prejudice to the possibility of any party to 
refer the case to a court’. However, this is open to various interpretations. 
Directive 2014/61 does not specify how the judicial protection rules should be 
applied in relation to requests for access to existing physical infrastructure. It 
follows that for such requests, the judicial protection rules therefore come within 
the scope of the procedural autonomy of Member States. The Supreme Court is 
TELEKOM SLOVENIJE 
 
7 
aware that the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court’) has already 
held on several occasions that, where there are no EU rules, it is for the domestic 
legal system of every Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having 
jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for 
safeguarding rights which individuals derive from the direct effect of EU law. 
11 Similarly, the Supreme Court is familiar with the settled case-law of the Court 
according to which the detailed procedural rules designed to ensure the protection 
of the rights which individuals enjoy under EU law are a matter for the domestic 
legal order of each Member State, in accordance with the principle of the 
procedural autonomy of the Member States, provided that they are not less 
favourable than those governing similar domestic situations (principle of 
equivalence), and that they do not make the exercise of rights conferred by the 
legal order of the European Union impossible or excessively difficult (principle of 
effectiveness). In the present case, however, because the wording of Article 3 of 
Directive 2014/61 is unclear, the court is not fully convinced as to how the 
provisions of national law (ZEKom-1) governing judicial protection in relation to 
requests for access to existing physical infrastructure are to be interpreted fairly. 
This is also confirmed by the diversity of legal views expressed by the lower 
courts regarding such issues. 
12 As is clear from the Court’s case-law, it has not yet considered the question of the 
interpretation of the phrase ‘without prejudice to the possibility of any party to 
refer the case to a court’. The Supreme Court is aware that the previous Directive 
2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a 
common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and 
services (Framework Directive) contained – in Article 20(5) on dispute settlement 
between undertakings – a slightly different provision, namely that the procedure 
should not preclude either party from bringing an action before the courts. The 
same wording is also found in Article 26(5) of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the 
European Electronic Communications Code. Nor is it certain from the Court’s 
case-law that the Court has already considered the interpretation of the 
abovementioned provisions of those directives. 
13 A similar provision to the second subparagraph of Article 3(5) of Directive 
2014/61 is also contained in Regulation (EU) 2024/1309 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2024 on measures to reduce the cost of 
deploying gigabit electronic communications networks, amending Regulation 
(EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Directive 2014/61/EU (Gigabit Infrastructure Act). 
Article 13, entitled ‘Dispute settlement’, reads, in paragraph 1 thereof, ‘without 
prejudice to the possibility to refer a case to a court, any party shall be entitled to 
refer to the competent national dispute settlement body … a dispute …’. 
According to Article 13(5) of Regulation 2024/1309, that article complements and 
is without prejudice to the judicial remedies and procedures in compliance with 
Article 47 of the Charter. Under the first subparagraph of Article 14(10) of that 
regulation, any decision taken by a competent body may be subject to an appeal, 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-164/25 
 
8  
in accordance with national law, before a fully independent appeal body, 
including a body of judicial character. The second subparagraph of Article 14(10) 
provides that ‘the right to appeal in accordance with the first subparagraph shall 
be without prejudice to the right of the parties to bring the dispute before the 
national competent court’. 
14 The Supreme Court maintains that the question of the interpretation of the phrase 
‘without prejudice to the possibility of any party to refer the case to a court’ 
cannot be resolved solely on the basis of the literal interpretation of Directive 
2014/61. If the wording of that phrase were considered in isolation, it could be 
interpreted as meaning that judicial protection against the decision of the dispute 
settlement body is sufficient. However, if such an interpretation were adopted, the 
text of Article 10(6) of Directive 2014/61 would already suffice, according to 
which ‘any decisions taken by any of the competent bodies referred to in this 
Article shall be subject to an appeal before a court in accordance with national 
law’, which expressly refers to judicial protection against the decisions of the 
dispute settlement body. On the other hand, the phrase ‘without prejudice to the 
possibility of any party to refer the case to a court’ can also be construed in the 
sense that, in addition to dispute settlement proceedings before national dispute 
settlement bodies, judicial protection must also be available before the ordinary 
courts. However, as already mentioned, the text of Directive 2014/61 does not 
expressly indicate the choice of competent court or the applicable judicial 
protection procedure, which casts doubt on that interpretation. 
15 A clear and unambiguous answer to the question of the meaning of the phrase in 
the Slovenian version ‘brez poseganja v možnost katere koli stranke, da zadevo 
predloži sodišču’ is not provided either by a comparison between the various 
language versions of this part of Directive 2014/61. The English version uses the 
expression ‘to refer the case to a court’, from which it may be inferred that judicial 
protection against the decision of the dispute settlement body is already sufficient. 
Nevertheless, that conclusion is doubtful when considering the part ‘without 
prejudice to the possibility of any party’, which can also be understood as 
meaning that the possibility of submitting a request for the settlement of a dispute 
before the national dispute settlement body does not affect the right of any party to 
request that a court should also rule on that request, without a prior decision by the 
national dispute settlement body. The French version ‘sans préjudice de la 
possibilité pour toute partie de saisir une juridiction’ can be construed in the same 
way. The German version ‘das Recht aller Parteien, ein Gericht mit dem Fall zu 
befassen, bleibt hiervon unberührt’ is also semantically ambiguous and allows 
both interpretations, in that it emphasises the right of any party to submit the 
dispute to a court. By contrast, the Croatian text ‘ne dovodeći u pitanje mogućnost 
bilo koje stranke, da se vezano za konkretni slučaj obrati sudu’ emphasises the 
right of any party to apply to a court in relation to a specific case, which could 
also be understood as meaning that any party has a right to judicial protection 
against the decision of the dispute settlement body. However, the Italian version 
of the phrase in question ‘fatta salva la possibilità per le parti di adire un organo 
TELEKOM SLOVENIJE 
 
9 
giurisdizionale’ can be understood as the right to submit the dispute to a court, 
which also allows both interpretations. 
16 Even if the purpose pursued by Directive 2014/61 were to be considered, the 
Supreme Court sees several possible ways of interpreting the phrase ‘without 
prejudice to the possibility of any party to refer the case to a court’. Nevertheless, 
an interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 3(5) of Directive 2014/61 
according to which several judicial remedies must necessarily be available (in 
addition to the judicial review, the possibility of filing an application with the 
ordinary court) and the dispute settlement proceedings represent a sort of 
alternative dispute resolution procedure, is contrary to the purpose of Directive 
2014/61. The right of providers of public communications networks to access 
physical infrastructure, as specified in Article 3 of that directive, is intended to 
improve the deployment of electronic communications networks (recital 14 of that 
directive). 
17 The phrase contained in Directive 2014/61 ‘without prejudice to the possibility of 
any party to refer the case to a court’ could also be understood as meaning that 
dispute settlement proceedings before the national dispute settlement body do not 
preclude judicial protection before the ordinary courts, in the event that the two 
network operators enter into an agreement for access to the physical infrastructure 
without the intervention of the national dispute settlement body, and a dispute 
arises between them in that connection, or in the case of legal claims of a civil 
nature arising from the new relationship, which was formed pursuant to the 
decision of the dispute settlement body. 
18 As an example of secondary EU legislation in which it is possible to assert rights 
either administratively or in court, the referring court cites Directive (EU) 
2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 
to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks. 
Article 45(1) of that directive provides that, without prejudice to the right of the 
parties to appeal to the courts, Member States must provide for an efficient and 
expeditious administrative procedure before their offices for the revocation or 
declaration of invalidity of a trade mark. For that reason also, it is not possible to 
exclude an interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 3(5) of Directive 
2014/61 according to which the national dispute settlement body only has 
alternative jurisdiction – that is to say, if neither party submits the dispute to a 
court. 
19 In the opinion of the Supreme Court, several interpretations of the second 
subparagraph of Article 3(5) of Directive 2014/61 are therefore possible. In those 
circumstances, the Supreme Court is required to submit a request for a preliminary 
ruling to the Court. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-164/25 
 
10  
Question 1 
20 As stated, the provisions of ZEKom-1 also allow an interpretation according to 
which the Agency’s jurisdiction to determine a dispute relating to access to 
existing physical infrastructure has an alternative character. The question therefore 
arises as to the interpretation of the phrase ‘without prejudice to the possibility of 
any party to refer the case to a court’, in the second subparagraph of Article 3(5) 
of Directive 2014/61, and specifically, whether that provision is to be interpreted 
as precluding national legislation according to which a network operator has the 
right to submit a request for settlement of a dispute relating to access to existing 
physical infrastructure either with the dispute settlement body or with an ordinary 
court. Indeed, the question arises as to whether such national legislation is 
contrary to the purpose of Directive 2014/61, which seeks to encourage joint use 
of existing physical infrastructure to reduce the costs of deployment of high-speed 
electronic communications networks. 
21 To that end, Article 3(4) of the directive establishes the obligation for Member 
States to ensure that, where access is refused or agreement on specific terms and 
conditions, including price, has not been reached within two months from the date 
of receipt of the request for access, either party is entitled to refer the issue to the 
competent national dispute settlement body. Similarly, the first subparagraph of 
Article 3(5) of the directive provides that the national dispute settlement body 
must adopt a binding decision to resolve the dispute initiated, setting fair and 
reasonable terms and conditions, including price where appropriate. That purpose 
is also reflected in the period within which the national dispute settlement body 
must resolve the dispute (four months from the date of receipt of the complete 
request), which is laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 3(5) of the 
directive. Reference should also be made to recital 35 of Directive 2014/61, which 
states that the dispute settlement body should have the appropriate competences 
and resources. 
22 According to that interpretation of Directive 2014/61, jurisdiction to decide on a 
request relating to access to existing physical infrastructure lies in parallel with 
both the administrative court and the ordinary court. 
Question 2 
23 If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, the answer to the second 
question would be devoid of purpose. However, if the first question is answered in 
the negative, the further question of the effectiveness of the protection of rights 
under EU law arises in the light of the national procedural rule laid down in 
Article 218(4) ZEKom-1, pursuant to which dispute settlement proceedings before 
the Agency are discontinued if, in the course of the dispute settlement proceedings 
before the Agency, one of the parties institutes proceedings with the same subject 
matter before the competent court. Indeed, the question arises as to whether such 
national legislation makes it excessively difficult to enjoy the rights recognised by 
TELEKOM SLOVENIJE 
 
11 
the EU legal order (as in the case of the right of access to existing physical 
infrastructure). 
24 Recital 39 of Directive 2014/61 states that Member States must apply the directive 
in accordance with the fundamental rights and principles recognised by the 
Charter, including the right to effective judicial protection. The Supreme Court is 
familiar with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence as developed by the 
Court, which limit the national procedural autonomy of the Member States. 
25 It should be noted that the national procedural rule laid down in Article 218(4) 
ZEKom-1 allows each of the parties (and therefore also the opposing party) to 
institute, after the start of the dispute settlement proceedings before the Agency, 
legal proceedings with the same subject matter before an ordinary court. Put 
differently, that rule could lead to a situation in which a party, that by submitting a 
dispute settlement request to the dispute settlement body chooses the jurisdiction 
of that body, is precluded from asserting its claim before that body owing to the 
right freely available to the opposing party to lodge, even after the start of the 
proceedings before the abovementioned body, a document instituting the 
proceedings of the same type before the ordinary court (which is not identical but 
results in the exclusion of the other request). In those circumstances, the 
proceedings before the dispute settlement body are discontinued. Such legal 
standing of the opposing party, by which that party prevents the decision of the 
dispute settlement body, despite the fact that those proceedings are already under 
way, thus completely nullifies the right of the party that, by submitting the dispute 
settlement request, has chosen the jurisdiction of that body. 
26 The question therefore arises as to whether it is necessary to interpret the second 
subparagraph of Article 3(5) of Directive 2014/61, taking into account the 
principles of equivalence and effectiveness, as well as Article 47 of the Charter, as 
precluding a national procedural rule pursuant to which dispute settlement 
proceedings before the national dispute settlement body are discontinued if one of 
the parties, in the course of the dispute settlement proceedings before that body, 
institutes proceedings with the same subject matter before the competent court.