Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . COMPETITION - DOMINANT POSITION - ACTIVITIES OF A NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS UNDERTAKING - EXERCISE BY THAT UNDERTAKING OF RULE-MAKING POWERS - APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 86 OF THE TREATY

( EEC TREATY , ART . 86 )

2.COMPETITION - DOMINANT POSITION - ABUSE - PROHIBITION BY AN UNDERTAKING HOLDING A STATUTORY MONOPOLY ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OF PRIVATE MESSAGE-FORWARDING AGENCIES - CRITERIA FOR APPRAISAL

( EEC TREATY , ART . 86 )

3.APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT - SUBMISSIONS - INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) OF THE TREATY PLEADED BY A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THE MEMBER STATE WHICH CONTROLS THE UNDERTAKING IN QUESTION - WHETHER ADMISSIBLE

( EEC TREATY , ART . 90 ( 2 ) AND FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ART . 173 )

4.MEASURES ADOPTED BY INSTITUTIONS - STATEMENT OF REASONS - DUTY - SCOPE

( EEC TREATY , ART . 190 )

Summary

1 . THE MANAGEMENT , BY AN UNDERTAKING HAVING THE STATUS OF A NATIONALIZED INDUSTRY , OF PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT AND ITS PLACING OF SUCH EQUIPMENT AT THE DISPOSAL OF USERS ON PAYMENT OF A FEE AMOUNTS TO A BUSINESS ACTIVITY WHICH AS SUCH IS SUBJECT TO THE OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY ARTICLE 86 OF THE TREATY . COMPRISED WITHIN THAT ACTIVITY , AND THEREFORE SUBJECT TO REVIEW IN THE LIGHT OF ARTICLE 86 OF THE TREATY , IS THE AUTONOMOUS EXERCISE OF RULE-MAKING POWERS STRICTLY LIMITED TO THE FIXING OF TARIFFS AND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH SERVICES ARE PROVIDED FOR USERS .

2.AN UNDERTAKING HOLDING A STATUTORY MONOPOLY ON THE MANAGEMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS INFRINGES ARTICLE 86 OF THE TREATY WHEN IT PROHIBITS THE ACTIVITIES OF PRIVATE MESSAGE-FORWARDING AGENCIES HANDLING INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION TRAFFIC , UNLESS IT IS SHOWN THAT SUCH AGENCIES ARE ABUSING THE PUBLIC NETWORKS . THE EMPLOYMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGY CONSTITUTING TECHNICAL PROGRESS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST CANNOT BE REGARDED AS AN ABUSE .

3.PURSUANT TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY , MEMBER STATES MAY , BY MEANS OF AN APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT , CHALLENGE ANY MEASURE ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION IN THE FORM OF A REGULATION OR AN INDIVIDUAL DECISION AND MAY , IN SO DOING , PLEAD THE INFRINGEMENT OF ANY STIPULATION IN THE TREATY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIMS . IT FOLLOWS THAT A MEMBER STATE MAY , IN SUPPORT OF SUCH AN APPLICATION , PLEAD AN INFRINGEMENT BY THE COMMISSION OF ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) OF THE TREATY , THE OBSERVANCE OF WHICH THE COMMISSION IS REQUIRED TO ENSURE , EVEN IF THE UNDERTAKING AFFECTED BY THE APPLICATION OF THAT PROVISION COMES UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE .

4.THE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH A DECISION HAVING ADVERSE EFFECT IS BASED MUST ENABLE THE COURT TO REVIEW THE LEGALITY OF THE DECISION AND TO PROVIDE THE PARTY CONCERNED WITH DETAILS SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THAT PARTY TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION IS WELL-FOUNDED . THE REQUIREMENT OF A STATEMENT OF REASONS MUST BE VIEWED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , AND IN PARTICULAR THE CONTENT OF THE MEASURE IN QUESTION , THE NATURE OF THE REASONS RELIED ON AND THE INTEREST WHICH ADDRESSEES , OR OTHER PERSONS TO WHOM THE MEASURE IS OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN , WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY , MAY HAVE IN OBTAINING EXPLANATIONS .