EN Official Journal of the European Union C 71/13

Actions brought on 21 December 2005 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein

(Joined Cases E-5/05, E-6/05, E-7/05, E-8/05, E-9/05)

(2006/C 71/08)

Five actions against the Principality of Liechtenstein were brought before EFTA Court on 21 December 2005 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Tor Arne Solberg-Johansen and Elisabethann Wright, acting as agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. In Case E-5/05: Declare that by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 5cm of Annex XI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (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)) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto and by the sectoral adaptations contained in Annex XI to that Agreement, within the time limit prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;

2. In Case E-6/05: Declare that by failing to ensure compliance with, or to supply the Authority with such information as would allow it to confirm compliance with the provisions of the Act referred to at point 13a of Annex XIV and point 5cg of Annex XI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto and by the sectoral adaptation contained in Annex XIV and Annex XI to that Agreement, within the time limit prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;

3. In Case E-7/05: Declare that by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 5cj of Annex XI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto and by the sectoral adaptation contained in Annex XI to that Agreement, within the time limit prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;

4. In Case E-8/05: Declare that by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 5cl of Annex XI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (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) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto and by the sectoral adaptations contained in Annex XI to that Agreement, within the time limit prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;

5. In Case E-9/05: Declare that by failing to adopt, or to notify the Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 5ck of Annex XI to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive)) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto within the time limit prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement; and

6. Order the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

— The case concerns the non-implementation of telecommunications directives.