scholarly journals Comment to the Judgement of EU Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-807/18 and C-39/19 Telenor Magyarország Zrt. v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnöke

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-120
Author(s):  
Andrzej Nałęcz
Keyword(s):  
Traffic Management ◽  
Internet Access ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Management Measures ◽  
National Regulatory Authority ◽  
Access Service ◽  
Data Volume ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Access Services ◽  
The Eu

The case comment concerns the Judgement of the EU Court of Justice of 15 September 2020 of Telenor Magyarország Zrt. v Nemzeti Média – és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnöke (Joined Cases C-807/18 and C-39/19). This first judgment of the EU Court of Justice under the Regulation 2015/2120 provided clarity on the interpretation and application of Article 3(2) and Article 3(3) of said Regulation, generally in line with BEREC’s position known since 2016. In the opinion of the EU Court of Justice, commercial practices of providers of Internet access service, and agreements these providers conclude with end users are not prohibited per se if they involve ‘zero tariffs’. However, traffic management measures that slow down or block Internet traffic not subject to the ‘zero tariff’ once an end user’s data volume has been exhausted are incompatible with Article 3(3) of Regulation 2015/2120. To establish such incompatibility, no assessment of the influence of those traffic management measures on the exercise ofend users’ rights is required. However, such an assessment – involving an analysis of the markets for Internet access services, and for Internet content – would be necessary if a national regulatory authority wanted to establish incompatibility of the conduct of a provider of Internet access services with Article 3(2) of Regulation 2015/2120.

End User Rights, Equal Treatment of Traffic, and Compatibility of Zero Tariff Offers with the Open Internet Access Regulation. CJEU Telenor Judgment in CASES C-807/18 and C-39/19 – A Case Comment

2021 ◽  
pp. 255-266
Author(s):  
Andrzej Nałęcz
Keyword(s):  
Traffic Management ◽  
Internet Access ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
End User ◽  
High Court ◽  
Slowing Down ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Management Measures ◽  
Access Services

This case comment concerns the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Telenor case. The CJEU responded to a request for a preliminary ruling by the Budapest High Court, which related to the use of zero tariff offers in commercial practices and agreements on internet access services. Zero tariffs consist in the traffic generated by specific applications or services not counting towards deductions in an end user’s data allowance in a given billing period. The CJEU came to the conclusion that such offers are incompatible with Article 3(3) of Regulation 2015/2120 on open internet access, if they involve traffic management measures blocking or slowing down all internet content other than the content subject to a zero tariff, once an end user’s data allowance has been exhausted. Finding this incompatibility does not require an assessment of the scale of the practice, and its influence on end user rights. Such an assessment would be necessary to establish incompatibility with Article 3(2) of Regulation 2015/2120. However, finding incompatibility with Article 3(3) makes it possible for national regulatory authorities to refrain from analyzing incompatibility with Article 3(2).

JAČANjE PRINCIPA NEUTRALNOSTI INTERNETA KROZ PRAKSU SUDA PRAVDE EU

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonja Lučić ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Internet Access ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Net Neutrality ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Internet Neutrality ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Treat All ◽  
First Time ◽  
Access Services ◽  
The Eu

In Case C-807/18 the Court of Justice of the EU had the opportunity to interpret Regulation 2015/2120, which contains the principle of Internet Neutrality, for the first time. On this occasion, the Court took position that Internet providers must not favor certain applications and services for providing and using data on the Internet to the detriment of others. The principle of net neutrality existed even before the adoption of Regulation 2015/2120. This Regulation establishes measures concerning open access to the Internet. Namely, the Regulation sets rules aimed at ensuring equality and nondiscriminatory treatement of traffic, as well as protection of the rights of end users. The principle of net neutrality implies that all providers of internet access services will treat all traffic equally without discrimination, restriction or interference and regardless of the sender and recipient, the content accessed or distributed,

scholarly journals Investigation of Service Quality of Measurement Reference Points for the Internet Services on Mobile Networks

2016 ◽  
Vol 53 (5) ◽  
pp. 64-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Lipenbergs ◽  
Vj. Bobrovs ◽  
G. Ivanovs
Keyword(s):  
Service Quality ◽  
Mobile Networks ◽  
Public Awareness ◽  
Internet Access ◽  
Reference Points ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Service Monitoring ◽  
Access Service ◽  
Access Services

Abstract To ensure that end-users and consumers have access to comprehensive, comparable and user-friendly information regarding the Internet access service quality, it is necessary to implement and regularly renew a set of legislative regulatory acts and to provide monitoring of the quality of Internet access services regarding the current European Regulatory Framework. The actual situation regarding the quality of service monitoring solutions in different European countries depends on national regulatory initiatives and public awareness. The service monitoring solutions are implemented using different measurement methodologies and tools. The paper investigates the practical implementations for developing a harmonising approach to quality monitoring in order to obtain objective information on the quality of Internet access services on mobile networks.

scholarly journals La reparación del incumplimiento del plazo razonable en el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea y una posible consecuencia para el estatus de los derechos fundamentales

2017 ◽  
pp. 21-58
Author(s):  
Edorta COBREROS MENDAZONA
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
El Sistema ◽  
Per Se ◽  
The Eu

LABURPENA: Zentzuzko epea funtsezko eskubidea da Europar Batasunaren ordenamenduan. Askotan eztabaidatu da eskubide hori urratzeak eragin ahal izan dituen kalteak konpentsatzeko moduaren gainean, eta Justizia Auzitegiaren interpretazioa eboluzionatuz joan da. Horren inguruko azken jarreraren ondorioz, kalte ordaina emateko errekurtsoa abiarazi behar da Auzitegi Nagusiaren aurrean, konpentsazioa jaso nahi bada. Ondorio berri bat ekar dezake horrek Europar Batasunaren kontratuz kanpoko erantzukizun-sisteman; hau da, oinarrizko eskubide bat kaltetzeak per se ekar lezake behar beste ezaugarritutako urraketa egotea. Horrek indartu egingo luke oinarrizko eskubideek lehentasunezko kokalekua edukitzea Europar Batasunaren ordenamenduan. RESUMEN: El plazo razonable es en la actualidad un derecho fundamental en el ordenamiento de la Unión Europea. La compensación de los daños que pudiera haber producido su conculcación ha sido una cuestión debatida y en la que la interpretación del Tribunal de Justicia ha experimentado una clara evolución. La última postura al respecto obliga a iniciar un recurso de indemnización ante el Tribunal General para obtenerla. Ello plantea una posible consecuencia novedosa en el sistema de responsabilidad extracontractual de la Unión Europea, como es que la lesión de un derecho fundamental podría constituir per se una violación suficientemente caracterizada, lo que reforzaría la posición preferente de los derechos fundamentales en el ordenamiento de la Unión Europea. ABSTRACT: Reasonable period of time is currently a fundamental right in the EU legal order. The compensation of damages that might have been caused by its infringement is a discussed matter and there the interpretation provided by the Court of Justice has experienced a clear evolution. The last position on this matter calls for filing an action for damages before the General Court in order to obtain a compensation. This raises a possible new consequence within the legal regime of the non contractual liability of the European Union, that is that the impairment of a fundamental right might be considered per se as a sufficiently serious breach which would strengthen the prevalent position of fundamental rights in the legal order of the European Union.

Institutional organisation of the European Union in the time of crisis – horizontal division of power and functions

2016 ◽  
pp. 54-66
Author(s):  
Monika Poboży
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
European Council ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Strong Position ◽  
Institutional System ◽  
The Eu

The article poses a question about the existence of the rule of separation of powers in the EU institutional system, as it is suggested by the wording of the treaties. The analysis led to the conclusion, that in the EU institutional system there are three separated functions (powers) assigned to different institutions. The Council and the European Parliament are legislative powers, the Commission and the European Council create a “divided executive”. The Court of Justice is a judicial power. The above mentioned institutions gained strong position within their main functions (legislative, executive, judicial), but the proper mechanisms of checks and balances have not been developed, especially in the relations between legislative and executive power. These powers do not limit one another in the EU system. In the EU there are therefore three separated but arbitrary powers – because they do not limit and balance one another, and are not fully controlled by the member states.

The preliminary ruling procedure at the court of justice of the European Union and transformation of European anti-discrimination law

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 66-72
Author(s):  
Elena Sorokina
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Essential Feature ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Eu

The preliminary ruling procedure is an essential feature of the EU legal system, which is a unique cooperation tool as part of the dialogue between the Court of Justice of the EU and national courts of the Member States. Its main purpose is to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of EU law with all Member States and to preserve the uniformity of the European legal system. The continuous use by national courts of the Member States of the mechanism of preliminary ruling and constructive inter-judicial cooperation, the Court of Justice has developed an extremely extensive case law on the prohibition of discrimination and with the result to introduce substantial changes in European anti-discrimination law.The preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice have shown its inclination to expand notions of what constitutes discrimination and in most cases the Court prompt by the desire to interpret the provisions of European law so as to ensure the full effectiveness of the law, as well as a willingness to promote and strengthen protection against discrimination in Europe. While the protection against discrimination on some grounds is stronger than others, however, the preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice are important contribution to the transformation of anti-discrimination law, promote change in the national legislation of the Member States and provide the more effective protection of human rights in general.

Review by Constitutional Courts of the Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Refer a Preliminary Question to the Court of Justice of the EU

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Eu

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document