EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2004/273/35
Case C-392/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 7 July 2004 in the case i-21-germany GmbH against the Federal Republic of Germany
Case C-392/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 7 July 2004 in the case i-21-germany GmbH against the Federal Republic of Germany
Case C-392/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 7 July 2004 in the case i-21-germany GmbH against the Federal Republic of Germany
OJ C 273, 6.11.2004, p. 20–20
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
6.11.2004 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 273/20 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 7 July 2004 in the case i-21-germany GmbH against the Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-392/04)
(2004/C 273/35)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht of 7 July 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 16 September 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of i-21-germany GmbH against the Federal Republic of Germany on the following questions:
1. |
Is Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (the licensing directive) to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of a licence fee calculated to anticipate the amount of a national regulatory authority's general administrative costs over a period of 30 years, to be charged in advance? If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: |
2. |
Are Article 10 EC and Article 11 of the licensing directive to be interpreted as meaning that a fee assessment that determines fees within the meaning of Question 1 and which has not been contested although such a possibility is afforded under national law must be set aside where that is permissible under national law but not mandatory? |