I ‑ 7119COMMISSION v LITHUANIA
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT  (Second Chamber)
11 September 2008 *
In Case C‑274/07,
ACTION under Article  226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 7  June 
2007,
Commission of the European Communities,  represented by G.  Braun and 
A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
applicant,
v
Republic of Lithuania,  represented by D. Kriaučiūnas, acting as Agent,
defendant,
*  Language of the case: Lithuanian.
I ‑ 7120JUDGMENT OF 11. 9. 2008 — CASE C‑274/07
THE COURT (Second Chamber),
composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, L.  Bay Larsen, 
K. Schiemann, P. Kūris and C. Toader (Rapporteur), Judges,
Advocate General: D. Ruiz‑Jarabo Colomer,  
Registrar: R. Grass,
having regard to the written procedure,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without 
an Opinion,
gives the following
Judgment
By its action the Commission of the European Communities asks the Court to 
declare that, by not ensuring in practice that authorities handling emergencies are, to 
the extent technically feasible, given caller location information for all callers to the 
single European emergency call number ‘112’ when public telephone networks are 
used, the Republic of Lithuania has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) 
of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 1
I ‑ 7121COMMISSION v LITHUANIA
2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications 
networks and services (‘Universal Service’ Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p.  51) (the 
‘Universal Service Directive’).
Legal background
Community law
The 36th recital in the preamble to the Universal Service Directive states that:
‘It is important that users should be able to call the single European emergency 
number “112”, and any other national emergency telephone numbers, free of charge, 
from any telephone, including public pay telephones, without the use of any means of 
payment. … Caller location information, to be made available to the emergency ser ‑
vices, will improve the level of protection and the security of users of “112” services 
and assist the emergency services, to the extent technically feasible, in the discharge 
of their duties, provided that the transfer of calls and associated data to the emer ‑
gency services concerned is guaranteed….’
Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive provides:
‘Member States shall ensure that undertakings which operate public telephone 
networks make caller location information available to authorities handling emergen ‑2
3
I ‑ 7122JUDGMENT OF 11. 9. 2008 — CASE C‑274/07
cies, to the extent technically feasible, for all calls to the single European emergency 
call number “112”.’
According to Article 38(1) of the Universal Service Directive, Member States are to 
adopt and publish the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to 
comply with the directive by 24 July 2003 at the latest and they are to immediately 
inform the Commission thereof. They are to apply those provisions from 25  July 
2003.
In accordance with Article  2, read in combination with Article  54 of the Act 
concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of 
Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, 
the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic 
of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which 
the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33) (the ‘Act of Accession’), the 
Republic of Lithuania was to comply with the Universal Service Directive from the 
date of its accession to the European Union, on 1 May 2004.
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) (OJ 2002 L 108, p.  33) (the ‘Framework Dir ‑
ective’) provides in Article 19(1):
‘Where the Commission, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in 
Article 22(2), issues recommendations to Member States on the harmonised applica ‑
tion of the provisions in this Directive and the Specific Directives in order to further 
the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 8, Member States shall ensure 
that national regulatory authorities take the utmost account of those recommenda ‑
tions in carrying out their tasks. Where a national regulatory authority chooses not 
to follow a recommendation, it shall inform the Commission giving the reasoning for 
its position.’4
5
6
I ‑ 7123COMMISSION v LITHUANIA
The 10th recital in the preamble to Commission Recommendation 2003/558/EC of 
25 July 2003 on the processing of caller location information in electronic commu ‑
nication networks for the purpose of location‑enhanced emergency call services 
(OJ 2003 L 189, p. 49) is worded as follows:
‘The effective implementation of location‑enhanced emergency call services requires 
that the caller’s location as determined by the provider of the public telephone 
network or service is transmitted automatically to any appropriate public safety 
answering point that can receive and use the location data provided.’
Points 4 and 13 of Recommendation 2003/558 state:
‘4.  For every emergency call made to the European emergency call number 112, 
public telephone network operators should, initiated by the network, forward 
(push) to public safety answering points the best information available as to the 
location of the caller, to the extent technically feasible. For the intermediate 
period up to the conclusion of the review as referred to in point 13 below, it is 
acceptable that operators make available location information on request only 
(pull).
…
13.  Member States should require their national authorities to report to the 
Commission on the situation of E112 implementation by the end of 2004 so 
that the Commission can undertake a review taking into account the emerging 
requirements from public safety answering points  and emergency services 
and the evolutions and availability of technological capabilities for location 
determination.’7
8
I ‑ 7124JUDGMENT OF 11. 9. 2008 — CASE C‑274/07
National law
Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive, which was transposed into Lithuanian 
law by Article 65(4) of Law No IX‑2135 on electronic communications (Elektroninių 
ryšių įstatymas Nr. IX‑2135), of 15  April 2004 (Žin., 2004, Nr.  69‑2382) (‘Law on 
electronic communications’), and entered into force on 1 May 2004, provides:
‘Providers of public communications networks and electronic communications ser ‑
vices accessible to the public shall supply, without the consent of subscribers or users 
of electronic communications services, information on location (together with flow 
data) to bodies responsible for processing emergency calls, in particular to the judi ‑
cial authorities, the ambulance service, the fire service and other emergency services 
in order for those bodies to answer calls from subscribers and users of electronic 
communications services and respond appropriately ….’
On 1 September 2007, Law No X‑1092 of 12 April 2007 (Žin., 2007, Nr. 46‑1723), 
amending Article 65 of the Law on electronic communications, entered into force. As 
amended, Article 65(4) states that providers of public communications networks and 
electronic communications services accessible to the public are required to provide 
caller location information free of charge to the Joint Emergency Services Centre and 
that the costs of acquisition, installation (adaptation), refurbishment and operation 
of the equipment necessary for that purpose shall be reimbursed out of public funds.9
10
I ‑ 7125COMMISSION v LITHUANIA
In addition to the Law on electronic communications, the Republic of Lithuania 
adopted a number of other acts intended to implement Article 26(3) of the Universal 
Service Directive. They include:
—  Law No IX‑2246 on the Joint Emergency Services Centre (Bendrojo pagalbos 
centro įstatymas Nr. IX‑2246), of 25 May 2004 (Žin., 2004, Nr. 90‑3306);
—  Resolution No 1500 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania on the 
establishment of the Joint Emergency Services Centre, the strategy for the intro ‑
duction of the single European emergency call number, and the approval of its 
implementation plan (Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės nutarimas Nr. 1500 dėl 
Bendrojo pagalbos centro įsteigimo ir vieno skubaus iškvietimo telefono numerio 
112 įvedimo strategijos, jos įgyvendinimo plano patvirtinimo), of 25 September 
2002 (Žin., 2002, Nr. 95‑4114), and
—  Decree No 1V‑389 of the Director of the Communications Regulatory Authority 
approving the procedure and the mode of transmission of calls from subscribers 
and/or users of communications services to the numbers of the Joint Emergency 
Services Centre and/or the emergency services (Ryšių reguliavimo tarnybos 
direktoriaus įsakymas Nr. 1V‑389 dėl abonentų ir(ar) paslaugų gavėjų skambučių 
siuntimo į Bendrojo pagalbos centro ir(ar) pagalbos tarnybų numerius tvarkos ir 
sąlygų aprašo patvirtinimo) of 21 April 2005 (Žin., 2005, Nr. 55‑1918).
Pre-litigation procedure
By letter of formal notice of 10 April 2006, the Commission informed the Republic 
of Lithuania of its concerns regarding the incorrect application of Article  26(3) of 11
12
I ‑ 7126JUDGMENT OF 11. 9. 2008 — CASE C‑274/07
the Universal Service Directive. Those concerns arose from the fact that when emer ‑
gency calls to the single European emergency number ‘112’ come from a mobile tele ‑
phone, caller location information is not provided to the emergency services.
In their response sent on 11 July 2006, the Lithuanian authorities confirmed that fact, 
explaining that not all the operators of public communications networks and elec ‑
tronic communications services accessible to the public had the technical equipment 
necessary for that purpose and that the authorities had not reached an agreement 
with the operators concerning the responsibility for costs related to locating callers. 
On 25  September 2006, the Lithuanian Government sent to the Commission the 
most recent information, setting out the measures envisaged in order to implement 
Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive.
On 18 October 2006, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion in which it stated 
that the Republic of Lithuania was unable to ensure in practice that caller location 
information is made available where emergency calls to the ‘112’ number are made 
from a mobile telephone, thereby failing to fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) of 
the Universal Service Directive. At the same time, it called on that Member State to 
take the measures necessary in order to comply with that opinion within two months 
of its notification.
In its reply of 12 January 2007, the Lithuanian Government indicated that a draft law 
amending Article 65 of the Law on electronic communications had been put before 
the Lithuanian Parliament, providing that the costs relating to the caller location 
information transmission service borne by the providers of public mobile telephone 
networks were to be financed from the national budget. Appended to that letter was 
an agreement concluded on 4 December 2006 between the Joint Emergency Services 
Centre and the mobile telephone operators relating to caller location services.13
14
15
I ‑ 7127COMMISSION v LITHUANIA
Taking the view, however, that the situation remained unsatisfactory, the Commis ‑
sion brought the present action.
The action
Admissibility
Arguments of the parties
The Lithuanian Republic submits that the action should be dismissed as inadmissible 
on the ground that the complaints set out in the reasoned opinion differed in their 
content from those raised in the application. Whereas the statement of reasons in 
the reasoned opinion emphasised the fact that in Lithuania, as regards calls to the 
‘112’ number from a mobile telephone, caller location information is not provided 
according to the ‘pull’ method, the application sets out an obligation to apply the 
‘push’ method.
The Commission replies that the reasoned opinion and the application mention both 
‘push’ and ‘pull’ methods, set out in Recommendation No 2003/558, and leave the 
Republic of Lithuania the choice as to which of those methods to apply in order to 
implement Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive.
In its rejoinder, the Republic of Lithuania submits that it is only at the stage of the 
reply that the Commission clarified its new position, according to which the Member 16
17
18
19
I ‑ 7128JUDGMENT OF 11. 9. 2008 — CASE C‑274/07
States not only may but must take the simplest technical measures to localise the 
caller, that is to say apply the ‘pull’ method. Since the Commission’s position there ‑
fore remained unclear until that stage the complaints that it made did not comply 
with the requirement to precisely formulate the subject‑matter of an action for 
failure to fulfil obligations.
Findings of the Court
First of all, it is settled case‑law that the purpose of the pre‑litigation procedure is 
to give the Member State concerned an opportunity to comply with its obligations 
under Community law, on the one hand, and, on the other, to avail itself of its right to 
defend itself against the objections formulated by the Commission (see, in particular, 
Case C‑484/04 Commission  v United Kingdom  [2006] ECR I‑7471, paragraph 24, and 
the case‑law cited).
The proper conduct of that procedure constitutes an essential guarantee required by 
the EC Treaty not only in order to protect the rights of the Member State concerned, 
but also to ensure that any contentious procedure will have a clearly defined dispute 
as its subject‑matter (see, Case C‑34/04 Commission  v Netherlands  [2007] ECR 
I‑1387, paragraph 49, and the case‑law cited).
It follows, first, that the subject‑matter of the proceedings under Article 226 EC is 
delimited by the pre‑litigation procedure governed by that provision. Accordingly, 
the application must be based on the same grounds and pleas as the reasoned opinion 
(see, Case C‑287/00 Commission  v Germany  [2002] ECR I‑5811, paragraph 18, and 
Case C‑305/03 Commission  v United Kingdom  [2006] ECR I‑1213, paragraph 22).20
21
22
I ‑ 7129COMMISSION v LITHUANIA
Second, the reasoned opinion must contain a cogent and detailed exposition of 
the reasons which led the Commission to the conclusion that the Member State 
concerned has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under Community law (see, 
Commission  v Germany , cited above, paragraph  19, and Commission  v United 
Kingdom , cited above, paragraph 26).
In this case, it must be stated first of all that the complaint made against the Republic 
of Lithuania remained unchanged throughout the pre‑litigation and contentious 
procedures. Both during the pre‑litigation procedure and before the Court, the 
Commission complained that that Member State had failed to fulfil its obligations 
under Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive by failing to ensure in prac ‑
tice that, to the extent technically feasible, authorities handling emergencies are 
given caller location information for all callers to the single European emergency call 
number ‘112’.
As regards the specific content and the reasoning of that complaint, the Commission 
relied, in the letter of formal notice and the reasoned opinion, on the fact that it was 
technically feasible for fixed and mobile telephone operators operating in Lithuania 
to provide that information at least according to the ‘pull’ method referred to in 
Recommendation 2003/558. However, in so doing it had in no way imposed that 
method on the Republic of Lithuania, but merely stated that in its view the obligation 
laid down in Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive is in fact applicable in 
this case, since the condition of technical feasibility to which Article 26(3) subjects 
that obligation is satisfied.
Contrary to the Republic of Lithuania’s submissions, the Commission did not assert, 
during the proceedings before the Court, that Member States have an obligation to 
implement a specific method in order to comply with Article 26(3) of the Universal 
Service Directive. The application and the reply, like the letter of formal notice 
and the reasoned opinion before them, simply refer to point 4 of Recommendation 
2003/558, without requiring one or other method mentioned in that paragraph to be 
implemented.23
24
25
26
I ‑ 7130JUDGMENT OF 11. 9. 2008 — CASE C‑274/07
Thus, the Commission submitted — in particular in its reply — not that the Republic 
of Lithuania must use the ‘pull’ method, but that that Member State is required to 
implement at least the most simple technical measures in order to ensure that, from 
the date laid down in the Act of Accession, the relevant information is actually trans ‑
mitted. That position corresponds exactly to the view expressed by the Commission 
during the pre‑litigation procedure.
It is clear from the foregoing that the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Republic of 
Lithuania must be dismissed.
Substance
Arguments of the parties
The Commission takes the view that it is technically feasible for Lithuanian operators 
of public mobile telephone networks to provide caller location information when the 
caller dials the ‘112’ number from a mobile telephone. Therefore, it follows from the 
information provided by the defendant itself that the mobile telephone networks in 
Lithuania do not have specific characteristics which, from a technical point of view, 
prevent the transmission of that information.
In particular, the agreement concluded on 4 December 2006 between the Joint Emer ‑
gency Services Centre and the providers of public mobile telephone network services 27
28
29
30
I ‑ 7131COMMISSION v LITHUANIA
states that it is technically possible to transmit the information, but that that might 
require additional investment. The lack of investment and the delays in acquiring the 
technical equipment necessary for that purpose cannot be regarded as a lack of tech ‑
nical feasibility within the meaning of Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive.
In its reply, the Commission states that point  4 of Recommendation 2003/558, to 
which it referred in its application, cannot, having regard to the non‑binding nature of 
that recommendation, require the Member States to apply the ‘push’ method rather 
than the ‘pull’ method in order to transmit caller location information. Although the 
Republic of Lithuania is therefore free as to the choice of method it must, however, in 
accordance with Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive, implement at least 
the most simple technical measures in order to ensure that the operators of fixed and 
mobile public telephone networks provide that information from the date set in the 
Act of Accession.
The Republic of Lithuania contends that the complaint made by the Commission 
is unfounded solely because it is not formulated in an appropriate manner. Since 
that Member State has adopted all the legal, technical and organisational measures 
possible in order to fulfil the obligations laid down by Article 26(3) of the Universal 
Service Directive, the Commission’s head of claim should have been formulated so as 
to seek a declaration that the Republic of Lithuania has failed to fulfil its obligations 
by not ensuring that the undertakings which operate public telephone networks 
make the relevant information available to the authorities handling emergencies.
As regards technical feasibility, the Republic of Lithuania explains that the Joint 
Emergency Services Centre has the technical means to receive the location informa ‑
tion on a person calling the ‘112’ number. However, the operators of public mobile 
telephone networks active in Lithuania do not always have the technical means to 
provide that information.31
32
33
I ‑ 7132JUDGMENT OF 11. 9. 2008 — CASE C‑274/07
That Member State points  out that the adaptation of the ‘pull’ method, used by 
certain operators for commercial purposes, would have been far simpler than the 
transition to a system based on the ‘push’ method. However, at the same time as a 
decision was taken to use the latter, more modern method, the extra investment to 
adapt the ‘pull’ method to the needs of the location of calls to the ‘112’ number was 
refused.
In that context, it states that the technical means necessary to transmit the informa ‑
tion concerned differ radically according to whether the ‘pull’ or ‘push’ method is 
used and that the two systems require investment and a certain amount of prepar‑
ation time. The factor of technical feasibility should be taken into consideration 
when examining the reasons why Lithuanian mobile telephone operators are not 
ready to transmit information to the emergency services.
In addition, account should be taken of the uncertainty raised by Recommendation 
2003/558 as to the manner in which the obligations arising from Article 26(3) of the 
Universal Service Directive are to be implemented and the time‑limit to be respected 
in that regard. There would be a failure to fulfil obligations only if it were known from 
the outset which method may and must be applied and from which date. According 
to the Republic of Lithuania, if it had been clearly established that Member States 
are free to apply the ‘pull’ method which is simpler from a technical point of view, it 
could have made use of that option, which would have saved a considerable amount 
of time.
Furthermore, points 4 and 13 of Recommendation 2003/558 should be interpreted as 
meaning that the aims of the Universal Service Directive are not achieved in an effect  ‑
 ive manner by employing the ‘pull’ method and therefore it is necessary to introduce 
the ‘push’ method as widely as possible. Since extra time was necessary in order to 
implement this method, the Commission provided for an additional period in the 
recommendation.34
35
36
37
I ‑ 7133COMMISSION v LITHUANIA
Findings of the Court
It must be recalled that, under Article  26(3) of the Universal Service Directive, 
Member States are to ensure that undertakings which operate public telephone 
networks make caller location information available to authorities handling emer ‑
gencies, to the extent technically feasible, for all calls to the single European emer ‑
gency call number ‘112’.
As is clear from the 36th recital in the preamble to the Universal Service Directive, 
that provision aims to improve the level of protection and the security of users of 
‘112’ services and assist the emergency services in the discharge of their duties.
It follows from the wording and the aim of the provision that it imposes on Member 
States, subject to technical feasibility, an obligation to achieve a result which is not 
limited to putting in place an appropriate regulatory framework, but which requires 
that the location information for all callers to the ‘112’ be actually transmitted to the 
emergency services.
In this case, the Republic of Lithuania does not deny that when the period prescribed 
in the reasoned opinion expired, that information was not transmitted in cases where 
the call came from a mobile telephone.
First, the Republic of Lithuania’s argument that the Commission’s complaint is not 
formulated in an appropriate manner since it has adopted all the legal, technical and 
organisational measures necessary to transpose Article 26(3) of the Universal Service 
Directive, cannot be accepted. It is clear from the formulation and the reasoning of 
that complaint that the Commission does not criticise the Republic of Lithuania for 38
39
40
41
42
I ‑ 7134JUDGMENT OF 11. 9. 2008 — CASE C‑274/07
having incorrectly or insufficiently transposed that provision, but for not being able 
to ensure in practice that the information at issue is actually made available to the 
emergency services.
Second, as regards the requirement of technical feasibility which accompanies the 
obligation imposed on the Member States by Article 26(3) of the Universal Service 
Directive, it must be held that, according to the information provided by the 
Republic of Lithuania, the failure to transmit information on the location of calls 
from the public mobile telephone networks is due to the fact that the operators of 
those networks do not have the necessary technical equipment, which would require 
substantial investment.
It has been explained in that regard that after an initial disagreement between the 
operators and the Lithuanian authorities concerning the financing of the costs 
of such investment the legislature amended Article 65(4) of the Law on electronic 
communications with effect from 1 September 2007, so as to provide that from now 
on operators are to provide the information at issue free of charge to the Joint Emer ‑
gency Services Centre and that the costs of acquiring, installing, adapting, refur ‑
bishing and operating the equipment necessary for that purpose are to be reimbursed 
from public funds.
It follows from that evidence, without there being any need to examine the agree ‑
ment concluded on 4 December 2006 between the Joint Emergency Services Centre 
and the providers of public mobile telephone network services, the interpretation 
of which is a matter of dispute between the parties, that the reason for the failure 
to transmit information on the location of calls from those networks does not arise 
from technical characteristics of those networks, which would prevent the transmis ‑
sion of that information, but from the lack of the investment required in order to 
acquire or adapt the equipment so as to allow that transmission.43
44
45
I ‑ 7135COMMISSION v LITHUANIA
As the Commission rightly stated, the failure to acquire or adapt the equipment 
necessary cannot be regarded as a lack of technical feasibility within the meaning of 
Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive.
Lastly, as regards the arguments put forward by the Republic of Lithuania regarding 
the method to be employed in order to transmit location information on callers to the 
‘112’ number, it must be held, first of all, that Article 26(3) of the Universal Service 
Directive does not contain any information in that regard and therefore leaves the 
Member States to decide the manner in which they wish to actually ensure that that 
information is transmitted.
In point  4, Recommendation 2003/558 mentions two methods. The first method, 
called the ‘push’ method consists in the automatic transmission of that informa ‑
tion by the operators of telephone networks, while according to the second method, 
the ‘pull’ method, that information is provided solely at the request of public safety 
answering points.
Although it follows from the wording of point 4 and the 10th recital in the preamble 
to Recommendation 2003/558 that the Commission regards the application of the 
first method to be the most effective and recommends that the Member States 
impose it, at least after an intermediate period, on public telephone networks oper ‑
ating on their territory, it is equally clear that that recommendation, in the light of its 
non‑binding nature, cannot require the Member States to use a specific method in 
order to implement Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive.
Not only is the non‑binding nature of Recommendation 2003/558 clear from the 
fifth paragraph of Article 249 EC, but it is also explicitly confirmed by Article 19 of 
the Framework Directive on the basis of which the recommendation was adopted. 
It is clear from Article 19(1) that the national regulatory authorities may choose not 
to follow a recommendation adopted by the Commission on the basis of the latter 46
47
48
49
50
I ‑ 7136JUDGMENT OF 11. 9. 2008 — CASE C‑274/07
provision, on condition that they inform the Commission thereof and communicate 
to the Commission the reasoning for their position.
Although the Member States are therefore free to chose the method to be used by the 
operators of public telephone networks in order to transmit the location  information 
of callers to the ‘112’ number, they are however bound by the clear and precise obli ‑
gation to achieve a result laid down in Article  26(3) of the Universal Service Dir ‑
ective, which requires them to ensure that that information is made available to the 
emergency services.
In particular, a Member State cannot justify any delay in the implementation of that 
obligation by the fact that it has decided to put in place the ‘push’ method based on 
the automatic transmission of location information.
In that connection it must be held that, contrary to the Republic of Lithuania’s asser ‑
tions, Recommendation 2003/558 does not give extra time to Member States which 
have opted for the ‘push’ method. Not only does the Commission lack powers to 
legitimately extend the binding time‑limit allowed to Member States for compli ‑
ance with Article 26(3) of the Universal Service Directive, but it also follows from the 
wording of point 4 of that recommendation that it by no means intends to provide 
for exemption from compliance with that time‑limit. Although point 4 mentions the 
possibility of implementing the ‘push’ method only after an intermediate period, it 
explains at the same time that during that period the information on location must 
at least be provided at the request of the emergency services, that is according to the 
‘pull’ method.
Lastly, as to the alleged uncertainties concerning the method and the period in 
which to implement the obligation laid down in Article 26(3) of the Universal Service 
Directive, it must be held that that provision and Recommendation 2003/558 do not 51
52
53
54
I ‑ 7137COMMISSION v LITHUANIA
give rise to any objective doubt in that respect. In those circumstances, and taking 
account of the fact in particular that the Republic of Lithuania itself explained in 
its defence that Recommendation 2003/558 is not binding on the Member States, it 
cannot reasonably argue that its delay in effectively implementing Article 26(3) of the 
Universal Service Directive is justified by a misunderstanding as to its obligations.
In light of the foregoing, it must be held that, by not ensuring in practice that author ‑
ities handling emergencies are, to the extent technically feasible, given caller location 
information for all callers to the single European emergency call number ‘112’ when 
public telephone networks are used, the Republic of Lithuania has failed to fulfil its 
obligations under Article 26(3) of the Universal Services Directive.
Costs
Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered 
to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since 
the Commission has applied for costs to be awarded against the Republic of Lithuania 
and the latter has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs.
On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby:
1.  Declares that, by not ensuring in practice that authorities handling emer -
gencies are, to the extent technically feasible, given caller location informa -
tion for all callers to the single European emergency call number ‘112’ when 55
56
I ‑ 7138JUDGMENT OF 11. 9. 2008 — CASE C‑274/07
public telephone networks are used, the Republic of Lithuania has failed to 
fulfil its obligations under Article 26(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the Euro -
pean Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and 
users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services;
2.  Orders the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs.
[Signatures]