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

A. Nałęcz
{"title":"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","authors":"A. Nałęcz","doi":"10.21697/priel.2021.10.2.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":269602,"journal":{"name":"Polish Review of International and European Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polish Review of International and European Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21697/priel.2021.10.2.06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
本案评论涉及欧盟法院于2020年9月15日对Telenor Magyarország Zrt的判决。v Nemzeti msamdia - samas Hírközlési Hatóság Elnöke(合并案件C-807/18和C-39/19)。欧盟法院根据法规2015/2120作出的首次判决明确了上述法规第3(2)条和第3(3)条的解释和适用,总体上与BEREC自2016年以来的立场一致。欧盟法院认为,互联网接入服务提供商的商业做法,以及这些提供商与最终用户签订的协议,如果涉及“零关税”,本身并不被禁止。然而,一旦最终用户的数据量耗尽,减慢或阻止不受“零关税”约束的互联网流量的流量管理措施与法规2015/2120第3(3)条不相容。为确立这种不相容,无须评估这些交通管理措施对行使最终用户权利的影响。然而,如果国家监管机构希望确定互联网接入服务提供商的行为与法规2015/2120第3(2)条不兼容,则需要进行此类评估(涉及对互联网接入服务市场和互联网内容的分析)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
“Commited by Men”: Individual Criminal Responsibility for Aggression Against Ukraine Why Ukraine Needs an International - Not Internationalised - Tribunal to Prosecute the Crimes of Aggression Committed Against It Legal Dilemmas of the European Court of Human Rights After Russia's Expulsion from the Council of Europe. Selected Issues The Role of the UN Security Council & General Assembly In Responding to the Invasion of Ukraine Conflict in Ukraine – Legal Battlefield. Editorial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1