Case C-28/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Koninklijke KPN NV and Others v Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/21/EC — Articles 4 and 19 — National Regulatory Authority — Harmonisation measures — Recommendation 2009/396/EC — Legal scope — Directive 2002/19/EC — Articles 8 and 13 — Operator designated as having significant market power on a market — Obligations imposed by national regulatory authorities — Price control and cost accounting obligations — Fixed and mobile call termination rates — Scope of the review that national courts can exercise over the decisions of national regulatory authorities)
Date: 2016-09-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: price regulations, regulation of telecommunications, telephone charges, transmission network








C_2016419EN.01001301.xml










14.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/13





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — Koninklijke KPN NV and Others v Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM)
(Case C-28/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Articles 4 and 19 - National Regulatory Authority - Harmonisation measures - Recommendation 2009/396/EC - Legal scope - Directive 2002/19/EC - Articles 8 and 13 - Operator designated as having significant market power on a market - Obligations imposed by national regulatory authorities - Price control and cost accounting obligations - Fixed and mobile call termination rates - Scope of the review that national courts can exercise over the decisions of national regulatory authorities))
(2016/C 419/15)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Koninklijke KPN NV, KPN BV, T-Mobile Netherlands BV, Tele2 Nederland BV, Ziggo BV, Vodafone Libertel BV, Ziggo Services BV, formerly UPC Nederland BV, Ziggo Zakelijk Services BV, formerly UPC Business BV

Defendant: Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 4(1) of 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), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, read in conjunction with Articles 8 and 13 of 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 amended by Directive 2009/140, must be interpreted as meaning that a national court, hearing a dispute concerning the legality of a tariff obligation imposed by the national regulatory authority for the provision of fixed and mobile call termination services, may depart from Commission Recommendation 2009/396/EC of 7 May 2009 on the regulatory treatment of fixed and mobile termination rates in the EU advocating the ‘pure Bulric’ (Bottom-Up Long-Run Incremental Costs) cost model as the appropriate price regulation measure in the termination market only where it considers that this is required on grounds related to the facts of the individual case, in particular the specific characteristics of the market of the Member State in question.










2.


EU law must be interpreted as meaning that a national court hearing a dispute concerning the legality of a tariff obligation imposed by the national regulatory authority for the provision of fixed and mobile call termination services can assess the proportionality of that obligation in the light of the objectives set out in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140, and Article 13 of Directive 2002/19, as amended by Directive 2009/140, and take into account the fact that the obligation has the effect of promoting the interests of end-users on a retail market which has not been earmarked for regulation.
A national court may not, when carrying out a judicial review of a decision of the national regulatory authority, require that authority to demonstrate that the obligation actually attains the objectives set out in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140.






(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.