This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020CA0005
Case C-5/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Vodafone GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications — Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 — Article 3 — Open internet access — Article 3(1) — End users’ rights — Article 3(2) — Prohibition of agreements and commercial practices limiting the exercise of end users’ rights — Article 3(3) — Obligation of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic — Possibility of implementing reasonable traffic management measures — Additional ‘zero tariff’ option — Limitation on tethering)
Case C-5/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Vodafone GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications — Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 — Article 3 — Open internet access — Article 3(1) — End users’ rights — Article 3(2) — Prohibition of agreements and commercial practices limiting the exercise of end users’ rights — Article 3(3) — Obligation of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic — Possibility of implementing reasonable traffic management measures — Additional ‘zero tariff’ option — Limitation on tethering)
Case C-5/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Vodafone GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications — Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 — Article 3 — Open internet access — Article 3(1) — End users’ rights — Article 3(2) — Prohibition of agreements and commercial practices limiting the exercise of end users’ rights — Article 3(3) — Obligation of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic — Possibility of implementing reasonable traffic management measures — Additional ‘zero tariff’ option — Limitation on tethering)
OJ C 462, 15.11.2021, p. 13–13
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
15.11.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 462/13 |
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Vodafone GmbH
(Case C-5/20) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications - Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 - Article 3 - Open internet access - Article 3(1) - End users’ rights - Article 3(2) - Prohibition of agreements and commercial practices limiting the exercise of end users’ rights - Article 3(3) - Obligation of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic - Possibility of implementing reasonable traffic management measures - Additional ‘zero tariff’ option - Limitation on tethering)
(2021/C 462/11)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.
Defendant: Vodafone GmbH
Interested party: Bundesnetzagentur für Elektrizität, Gas, Telekommunikation, Post und Eisenbahnen
Operative part of the judgment
Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union must be interpreted as meaning that a limitation on tethering, on account of the activation of a ‘zero tariff’ option, is incompatible with the obligations arising from Article 3(3).