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).

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.

Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) Kerly Del Rosario Martinez Silva v Instituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) Comune di Genova

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 357-363
Author(s):  
Bjarney Friðriksdóttir
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Report ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights

Abstract This case report provides an account of the issues addressed in the preliminary ruling of the CJEU in Martinez Silva vs. Italy. The case centres on the limitations Member States of the European Union are permitted to apply in granting third-country nationals in employment equal treatment with nationals in social security rights according to Directive 2011/98/EU (the Single Permit Directive). Additionally, the preliminary ruling of the Court is discussed is discussed in the context of the human rights principle of equal treatment as it is enshrined in EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and International Labour Law.

scholarly journals Refl ections on the Principle of Equal Treatment in EU Law and the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-23
Author(s):  
Marija Daka
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Complex Approach

The paper presents some of the most relevant aspects of European nondiscrimination law established th rough European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights, looking also at the evolution of the norms and milestones of case-law on equal treatment within the two systems. The paper gives an overview of the non-discrimination concept as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union and by the European Court of Human Rights. We examine the similar elements but also give insight into conceptual differences between the two human rights regimes when dealing with equal treatment. The differences mainly stem from the more complex approach taken by EU law although, based on analysed norms, cases, and provisions, the aspects of equal treatment in EU law are largely consistent with the practice of the ECtHR. Lastly, the paper briefl y places the European non-discrimination law within the multi-layered human rights system, giving some food for thought for the future potential this concept brings.

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 Equal treatment in agreements concluded between European Union and third countries

Ratio Juris ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (30) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitris Liakopoulos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Integration ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Member States ◽  
Family Ties ◽  
Court Of Justice

The purpose of this work is to bring the legal status of third-country citizens closer to that of member states, as a different special regime according to the relative agreements concluded for certain categories of foreigners without disregarding the value of some elements of fact, such as residence, family ties, performance of specific economic activities or interests of international politics for respect of these obligations, with the not always uniform content that the union evidently had to entrust to member states a union of intent through “supervision" as well as the interpretation carried out by The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) which has strongly reduced state's competences aiming at a European integration still in progress and especially after Brexit.

Overview of recent cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (October 2019-January 2020)

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-70
Author(s):  
Pauline Melin
Keyword(s):  
Early Retirement ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Unemployment Benefits ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Retirement Pension ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Retroactive Effect ◽  
Pension Age ◽  
Pension Benefits

During the period of reporting (1 October 2019-31 January 2020), six judgments are worth noting in the area of EU social security law. In Safeway, the Court had to decide whether Article 119 of the EC Treaty on equal treatment precluded a measure ending discrimination through the fixing, with retroactive effect, of a uniform normal pension age equal to that of the members within the previously disadvantaged category. In Bocero Torrico, the question related to the obligation on Member States, under Regulation 883/2004, to take into account equivalent benefits acquired in other Member States for the purpose of calculating an early retirement pension. WA concerned a discriminatory law that granted a pension supplement solely to women. UB was about a discriminatory law that granted additional benefits for sportspersons based on their citizenship. In ZP, the question concerned Article 62 of Regulation 883/2004 dealing with the calculation of unemployment benefits. Finally, in Pensions-Sicherungs-Verein, the Court had to interpret Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 in the context of a reduction of pension benefits following the insolvency of the employer.

Google Spain v. González: Did the Court Forget about Freedom of Expression?

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 389-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Kulk ◽  
Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius
Keyword(s):  
Search Engine ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The European Union ◽  
High Court ◽  
Search Results ◽  
Doing Business ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Data Protection Directive ◽  
Job Application ◽  
The Right

When reviewing a job application letter, going on a first date, or considering doing business with someone, the first thing many people do is entering the person's name in a search engine. A search engine can point searchers to information that would otherwise have remained obscure. If somebody searched for the name of Spanish lawyer Mario Costeja González, Google showed search results that included a link to a 1998 newspaper announcement implying he had financial troubles at the time. González wanted Google to stop showing those links and started a procedure in Spain. After some legal wrangling, the Spanish Audiencia Nacional (National High Court) asked the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for advice on the application of the Data Protection Directive, which led to the controversial judgment in Google Spain. In its judgment, the CJEU holds that people, under certain conditions, have the right to have search results for their name delisted. This right can also extend to lawfully published information.

scholarly journals Overview of recent cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (July 2019-September 2019)

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 370-377
Author(s):  
Anne Pieter van der Mei
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Member State ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Insurance Cover ◽  
The Status ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

In the reporting period July-September 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered various rulings that are significant for social security. The ruling that stands out is the one in Van den Berg and others, which concerned the power of a non-competent Member State to grant residents benefits where they lack insurance cover in the competent State. The other cases included in this overview concern the application of the right to equal treatment to social security conventions concluded between a Member State and a third country ( EU), the retention of the status of self-employed person by women who cease to be active due to pregnancy ( Dakneviciute) and the right to export student financial aid ( Aubriet).

Sandoz & Hexal v Searle & Janssen Sciences Ireland: What is the formula for patent term extensions?

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 219-221
Author(s):  
Chris Hayes
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Pharmaceutical Product ◽  
The European Union ◽  
High Court ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Patent Term ◽  
Basic Patent ◽  
Commercially Important ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Uk

In Sandoz Ltd & Hexal AG v G.D. Searle LLC & Janssen Sciences Ireland UC [2017] EWHC 987 (Pat), the UK High Court held that an active ingredient in a pharmaceutical product that was claimed only by reference to a Markush formula and not expressly referred to in the patent was “protected” by a basic patent for the purposes of obtaining a patent term extension under the European Union Supplementary Protection Certificate Regulations. This decision will be welcomed by practitioners in adding some clarity to the interpretation of previous decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union relating to the definition of what is protected by a basic patent in this extremely commercially important and fast-moving area of jurisprudence. The implication of this decision is discussed further in this report.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document