i)

by adopting Decision 830/2020 of 8 September, by which Médiatanács (Media Council, Hungary) refused to extend Klubrádió’s rights of use of radio frequencies,

ii)

by adopting a statutory provision such as Article 48(7) of Law CLXXXV of 2010 which, in the event of repeated infringements, automatically precludes the extension of rights of use of radio frequencies for broadcasting services, even if the infringement was not particularly serious and was of a purely formal nature, and

iii)

by thus preventing, in a disproportionate and discriminatory manner, the continuation of Klubrádió’s operations within the radio broadcasting services sector,

Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5, 7 and 10 of Directive 2002/20/EC, (1) Article 4, point 2, of Directive 2002/77/EC, (2) Article 9 of Directive 2002/21/EC, (3) the general principles of proportionality, non-discrimination and good faith, and Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

iv)

by failing to adopt, within the six-week period provided for in Article 5(3) of Directive 2002/20, a decision on the application for an extension of Klubrádió’s rights of use of radio frequencies, and

v)

by failing to carry out a procedure for granting rights of use of the frequency previously used by Klubrádió within a period which would have allowed Klubrádió to obtain the decision before the expiry of its right of use,

Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2002/21, Article 5(3) of Directive 2002/20, and the general principle of good administration;

(vi)

by publishing a call for tenders on 4 November 2020 and adopting Decision 180/2021 of 10 March, in which the Media Council

Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of Directive 2002/20, Article 45 of Directive (EU) 2018/1972 (4) and Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

vii)

by adopting a statutory provision such as Article 65(11) of Law CLXXXV of 2010, which precludes the possibility of applying for provisional rights of use where the communication services provider’s rights of use have not previously been extended, whereas it offers that possibility to providers which have already extended their rights of use once, without justifying that difference in treatment, and even though the grounds that preclude that extension do not preclude new rights of use from being granted, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45(1) of Directive 2018/1972, and the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination.