Proximus SA v Commune d'Etterbeek.
Date: 2015-12-17
19. The directive lays down not only rules governing the procedures for granting general authorisations or rights to use radio frequencies or numbers and the content of those authorisations but also rules setting out the nature and scope of the financial payments related to those procedures which Member States may impose on undertakings in the electronic communications services sector (see judgments in Belgacom and Mobistar , C‑256/13 and C‑264/13, EU:C:2014:2149, paragraph 29, and Base Company , C‑346/13, EU:C:2015:649, paragraph 15).
20. Thus, according to the Court’s settled case-law, Member States may not, within the framework of the authorisation directive, levy any charges or fees in relation to the provision of networks and electronic communication services other than those provided for by that directive (judgment in Base Company , C‑346/13, EU:C:2015:649, paragraph 16; see also, to that effect, judgments in Vodafone España and France Telecom España , C‑55/11, C‑57/11 and C‑58/11, EU:C:2012:446, paragraphs 28 and 29, and Belgacom and Mobistar , C‑256/13 and C‑264/13, EU:C:2014:2149, paragraph 30).
21. It follows that, for the provisions of the authorisation directive to be applicable to a charge such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the trigger for that charge must be linked to a general authorisation procedure, which ensures, under Article 2(2)(a) of the authorisation directive, rights for the provision of electronic communications networks or services (judgment in Base Company , C‑346/13, EU:C:2015:649, paragraph 17; see also, to that effect, judgments in Fratelli De Pra and SAIV , C‑416/14, EU:C:2015:617, paragraph 41; Commission v France , C‑485/11, EU:C:2013:427, paragraphs 30, 31 and 34; and Vodafone Malta and Mobisle Communications , C‑71/12, EU:C:2013:431, paragraphs 24 and 25).
22. In that regard, the Court noted, with respect to Article 12 of the authorisation directive, that a charge whose trigger is not linked to a general authorisation procedure for access to the electronic telecommunications services market does not fall within the scope of Article 12 (see, inter alia, judgments in Vodafone Malta and Mobisle Communications , C‑71/12, EU:C:2013:431, paragraph 25, and Fratelli De Pra and SAIV , C‑416/14, EU:C:2015:617, paragraph 41).
23. With respect to Article 13 of the authorisation directive, the Court noted that that provision does not concern all fees to which infrastructure permitting the provision of networks and electronic communication services are subject (judgments in Belgacom and Mobistar , C‑256/13 and C‑264/13, EU:C:2014:2149, paragraph 34, and Base Company , C‑346/13, EU:C:2015:649, paragraph 18).
24. That article concerns the conditions under which fees may be imposed for the rights of use for radio frequencies or numbers or rights to install facilities on, over or under public or private property (judgments in Belgacom and Mobistar , C‑256/13 and C‑264/13, EU:C:2014:2149, paragraph 31, and Base Company , C‑346/13, EU:C:2015:649, paragraph 19).
27. Moreover, according to the case-law of the Court, the terms ‘facilities’ and ‘install’, used in Article 13 of the authorisation directive, respectively refer to the physical infrastructure enabling provision of electronic communications networks and services and to their physical installation on the public or private property concerned (judgments in Belgacom and Mobistar , C‑256/13 and C‑264/13, EU:C:2014:2149, paragraph 33, and Base Company , C‑346/13, EU:C:2015:649, paragraph 21).