This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011CN0518
Case C-518/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 10 October 2011 — UPC Nederland BV v Gemeente Hilversum
Case C-518/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 10 October 2011 — UPC Nederland BV v Gemeente Hilversum
Case C-518/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 10 October 2011 — UPC Nederland BV v Gemeente Hilversum
OJ C 25, 28.1.2012, p. 25–27
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
28.1.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 25/25 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 10 October 2011 — UPC Nederland BV v Gemeente Hilversum
(Case C-518/11)
(2012/C 25/45)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Gerechtshof te Amsterdam
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: UPC Nederland BV
Defendant: Gemeente Hilversum
Questions referred
1. |
Does a service consisting of the supply of free-to-air radio and television packages via cable, for the delivery of which both transmission costs and an amount relating to (charges for) payments made to broadcasters and copyright collecting societies in connection with the publication of their content are charged, fall within the scope of the new regulatory framework [for electronic communications networks]? |
2. |
|
3. |
If Questions 2(a) and (b) are answered in the negative, the following question arises: Is a public authority, such as the Municipality, in a situation such as that at issue here, (still) bound by loyalty to the European Union (‘Union loyalty’) if, in entering into and then applying the tariff-limiting clause, it is not performing a public duty but is acting in the context of a private-law competence (see also Question 6(a))? |
4. |
If the new regulatory framework is applicable and the Municipality is bound by Union loyalty:
|
5. |
|
6. |
If Article 101 TFEU must be applied beyond the ambit of the dispute between the parties and having regard to (the objectives of) the new regulatory framework; the application thereof by OPTA and the European Commission; the alignment of concepts used in the new regulatory framework, such as significant market power and definition of the relevant markets, with similar concepts in European competition law, the following questions arise from the facts that have come to light during the proceedings:
|
7. |
Does the national court still have the power under Article 101(3) TFEU to declare a prohibition under Article 101(1) TFEU inapplicable in respect of the tariff-limiting clause, in the light of the new regulatory framework and the Commission’s serious doubts in its letter of serious doubt about the compatibility with the objectives of competition law of (ex ante) intervention in retail tariffs? Is the answer affected by the fact that OPTA abandoned the proposed price control as a result of the Commission’s letter? |
8. |
Does the European penalty of invalidity under Article 101(2) TFEU allow for some latitude in respect of its effects in terms of time having regard to the circumstances at the time of the conclusion of the Agreement (the beginning of the liberalisation of the telecommunications sector) and later developments in the telecommunications sector, including the entry into force of the new regulatory framework and the consequent serious objections expressed by the Commission against the introduction of price control? |