Case C-222/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Teleklagenævnet (Denmark) lodged on 25 April 2013 — TDC A/S v Erhvervsstyrelsen
Date: 2013-04-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Denmark, consumer protection, interpretation of the law, provision of services, transmission network, universal service








C_2013207EN.01001201.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Teleklagenævnet (Denmark) lodged on 25 April 2013 — TDC A/S v Erhvervsstyrelsen
(Case C-222/13)
2013/C 207/22
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Teleklagenævnet

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TDC A/S

Defendant: Erhvervsstyrelsen

Questions referred







1.


Does 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), (1) including Article 32, preclude a Member State from laying down rules which do not allow an undertaking to lodge a claim against the Member State for separate recovery of the net costs of providing additional mandatory services not covered by Chapter II of that directive, where the undertaking’s profits from other services which are covered by the undertaking’s universal service obligations under Chapter II of that directive exceed the losses associated with the provision of the additional mandatory services?










2.


Does the Universal Service Directive preclude a Member State from laying down rules allowing undertakings only to lodge a claim against the Member State for recovery of the net costs of providing additional mandatory services which are not covered by Chapter II of that directive, if the net costs amount to an unreasonable burden for the undertakings?










3.


If question 2 is answered in the negative, may the Member State decide that there is no unreasonable burden associated with the provision of additional mandatory services not covered by Chapter II of that directive, if the undertaking as a whole has achieved profits from the provision of all those services where that undertaking has a universal service obligation, including the provision of services which the undertaking also would have provided without having the universal service obligation?










4.


Does the Universal Service Directive preclude a Member State from laying down rules that a designated undertaking’s net costs associated with the provision of universal service pursuant to Chapter II of that directive is to be calculated on the basis of all income and costs associated with the provision of the service in question, including that income and those costs which the undertaking also would have had without having the universal service obligation?










5.


Does it affect the answers to questions 1-4 if an additional mandatory service is required to be provided in Greenland which, under Annex II to the TFEU, is an overseas country or territory, when the Danish authorities impose an obligation on an undertaking established in Denmark and the undertaking has no other activities in Greenland?










6.


Of what significance are Article 107(1), Article 108(3) TFEU and Commission Decision of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 106(2) TFEU to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest for the answers to questions 1-5?










7.


Of what significance is the principle of minimum distortion of competition in, inter alia, Article 1(2), Article 3(2) and recitals (4), (18), (23) and (26) in the preamble to and Part B of Annex IV to the Universal Service Directive for the answers to questions 1-5?










8.


If the provisions of the Universal Service Directive preclude national schemes as referred to in questions 1, 2 and 4, do those provisions or preclusions have direct effect?






(1)  OJ L 108, p. 51.