Case C-514/24, Magyar Telekom: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 24 July 2024 – Magyar Telekom Nyrt. v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnöke
Date: 2024-07-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, amendment of a law, case-law (EU), communications policy, direct applicability, interpretation of the law, provision of services, regulation of telecommunications








C_202406405EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/6405


4.11.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 24 July 2024 – Magyar Telekom Nyrt. v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnöke


(Case C-514/24, Magyar Telekom)

(C/2024/6405)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Magyar Telekom Nyrt.

Respondent: Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnöke

Questions referred







1.


May a judgment of the Court of Justice be regarded as equivalent to a directly binding provision of EU law, for the purposes of Article 105(4) of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (1) (‘the Code’), or rather must it be regarded as an interpretation of the law which does not constitute an amendment of earlier legislation from the perspective of Article 105(4) of the Code?










2.


May the Guidelines of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (‘BEREC’), BoR (16) 127, of 30 August 2016 (‘the 2016 BEREC Guidelines’), as replaced, in so far as is relevant to the present dispute, by the BEREC Guidelines, BoR (22) 81, of 9 June 2022 (‘the 2022 BEREC Guidelines’), be regarded – in the light, in particular, of Article 10(2) of the Code and Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 (‘the BEREC Regulation’) – as being part of EU law or directly binding provisions of EU law and, as such, as constituting an amendment of legislation which justifies the application of the exception laid down in Article 105(4) of the Code, or rather are they simply an interpretation of the law – particularly since they apply a judgment of the Court of Justice – which does not constitute an amendment of earlier legislation from the perspective of Article 105(4) of the Code?










3.


If the application of the exception laid down in Article 105(4) of the Code is not justified by a judgment of the Court of Justice or by the 2022 BEREC Guidelines, may a decision of a national regulatory authority which applies, in respect of a supplier of electronic communications services, an amended judicial criterion in relation to Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union (2) (‘Regulation 2015/2120’), and based on the 2022 BEREC Guidelines, as amended by a judgment of the Court of Justice, be considered to constitute a directly binding provision of national law for the purposes of Article 105(4) of the Code, regard being had to the fact that the provision of Regulation 2015/2120 remains the same and was not amended during the material time for the purposes of the dispute?






(1)  
            OJ 2018 L 321, p. 36.

(2)  
            OJ 2015 L 310, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/6405/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)