Testing Eu Experimentalist Governance Inward The Telecoms Sector
November 23, 2018
Edit
The edifice of a Digital Single Market for telecommunication is i of the principal priorities of the electrical flow European Commission.[i] Yet, the achievement of an actual unmarried marketplace for telecoms is however far from becoming a reality. The designed (multi-level) regulatory model for telecommunication places sector-specific National Regulatory Authorities at the kernel inwards the arrangement for the implementation of the European Union regulatory framework for telecoms. Moreover, the enforcement of the framework corresponds to the Member States nether the national procedural autonomy. However, inwards guild to save the legal integrity of the European Union rules, the consistent application of the European Union telecoms framework as well as the achievement of its policy objectives builds on a sector-specific supervisory mechanisms that grants the European Commission greater powers to monitor the unlike regulatory approaches of national regulators: Articles seven as well as 7a of the Framework Directive on telecoms regulation.[ii] These articles seat inwards house a consultation as well as monitoring arrangement of a post-legislative nature that aims at consolidating the internal marketplace for telecoms based on a combination of hard as well as soft police describe techniques, but is this arrangement upward to the task?
This brief post service examines a pending example (Case C‑28/15, Koninklijke KPN NV as well as Others v Autoriteit Consument en Markt) that highlights the deficiencies of the market-consolidating machinery seat inwards place.
Background
In a nutshell, the example deals amongst a clash betwixt the Dutch telecoms regulator, which issued a regulatory determination implementing a Commission Recommendation on termination rates,[iii] as well as the Dutch Trade as well as Industry Appeals Tribunal, which overruled the National Regulatory Authority’s (NRA) determination inwards the context of a physical care for of judicial review next the appeal of the regulatory determination past times some marketplace telecoms operators. In particular, the national Court required the NRA to deviate from the Commission Recommendation on the grounds that at that spot were no reasons for justifying a modification inwards the methodology used for calculating caps on termination rates.
However, this is the minute fourth dimension that the regulatory determination next the Recommendation is contested inwards front end of the national courtroom inwards The Netherlands. Already inwards 2010, the Dutch regulator (at that fourth dimension OPTA, immediately ACM[iv]) issued a determination inwards occupation amongst the guidance provided inwards the Commission Recommendation on termination rates. That triggered an initial response past times the telecoms operators, who appealed the regulatory decision. In real wide terms, as well as leaving aside farther rival concerns as well as issues of marketplace analysis that were also object of the plea, the Court, upholding the appeal, argued that despite the Commission’s Recommendation on termination rates, weather condition on the national marketplace remained unchanged and, therefore, at that spot was no ground to adjust the methodology for cost calculation inwards accordance amongst the Recommendation. Essentially, the courtroom concluded that the inefficiencies inwards retail pricing cannot endure resolved past times imposing a “more invasive measure” at wholesale level, given that the retail mobile marketplace was already considered competitive.[v] As a result, the Court established novel cap prices for termination rates as well as compelled the regulator to accept a novel determination setting the relevant rates on the footing of a unlike cost-methodology than that suggested past times the European Commission. As business office of the consultation physical care for enshrined inwards Article 7a Framework Directive, the national regulator notified the European Commission the novel determination compliant amongst the court’s judgment. In persuasion of the Commission, that determination could create a barrier to the Internal Market. This led to the opening of a Phase II investigation nether Article 7a procedure. Such a province of affairs placed the NRA inwards the middle of a “tug-of-war” betwixt the European Commission as well as the national judiciary. At that time, the national regulator could make anything but to give effect to the judgment of the highest administrative courtroom inwards The Netherlands. However, 2 years later, inwards the context of a novel marketplace analysis, the regulator –perhaps pressured past times the Commission’s investigation nether the 7a procedure– issued a novel determination next the European Recommendation. As expected, the novel determination was i time to a greater extent than appealed inwards front end of the national court. However, on this occasion, the national courtroom decided to refer the example to the European courtroom for preliminary ruling.
Issues at stake
In brief, the national approximate asked the European courtroom to clarify the discretion of the national judge[vi] to depart from a European Union Recommendation on the footing national legal as well as factual(!) circumstances. The national courtroom also seeks clarification every bit to the competence of the national courtroom to assess the proportionality of the NRA’s performance inside the context of the judicial review of regulatory decisions (Article iv of the Framework Directive). Accordingly, the example addresses three primal legal (and institutional) tensions: 1) the legal as well as factual effect of soft-law; 2) the institutional as well as substantial limits of the judicial review of the activity of the national regulator; as well as 3) the proportionality of the NRA’s regulatory activity when giving effect to a European Union Recommendation inwards a province of affairs where the factual circumstances of a national marketplace stay unchanged (reflecting a clash betwixt the national regulator and the national judiciary).
So far, nosotros make non lead maintain a concluding Judgment from Luxembourg. However, the analysis of the lately issued Opinion (28th April) already provides warnings almost the institutional problems that this example entails, inwards particular, for those other NRAs inwards Europe that are facing a like province of affairs as well as that, therefore, are awaiting a decision.
AG Opinion
In the Opinion, AG Mengozzi holds that, despite its non-binding nature (para. 54), the national courtroom has to “take into consideration” the Recommendation on termination rates (para. 57). Moreover, he also posits that the national approximate must human activity amongst “extreme caution” when deciding to depart from the methodology suggested past times the Commission (paras.53 as well as 64). Advocate General also considers that it is non a work of incompatibility of the national police describe amongst the European Union legal provisions. In particular, he states that he finds (para. 72)
“very hard to conceive that the national law, every bit it has stated that court, namely, every bit proceeds from Union law, requires, past times its wording as well as its capacity, departing from the calculation model recommended past times the Commission”
However, and given that that does non hateful that at that spot is alone i appropriate model to give effect to the provisions contained inwards the Access Directive[vii], Mengozzi acknowledges, the specific characteristics of the Dutch marketplace could Pb the national courtroom to depart from the recommended model (para. 75).
The minute business office of the Opinion focuses on the assessment of proportionality of the regulatory determination inwards accordance to the regulatory objectives to endure pursued past times NRAs nether the Framework Directive every bit business office of the judicial review. In Mengozzi’s view, the orbit of judicial command of the regulatory activity reaches the proportionality assessment (paras. lxxx as well as 84). As to this proportionality assessment, he holds that, inwards his view, next the Recommendation would entail a presumption of proportionality amongst the European Union regulatory objectives enshrined inwards Article 8 of the Framework Directive; namely, advertisement of competition, contribution to the evolution of the Internal Market, as well as advertisement of the interests of the citizens of the European Union. This is of import because the regulator’s justification to impose an obligation inwards a regulated marketplace (wholesale) was based on the effects to endure produced on a non-regulated marketplace (retail). Accordingly, when it comes to the burden of proof, as well as given that it would require the demonstration of an impossible (or excessively hard to provide) evidence, he concluded that the national courtroom cannot require the NRA to sufficiently bear witness the effective achievement of the regulatory objectives (paras. 92 as well as 96).
Comments
Harmonizing the Internal marketplace nether a multi-level governance construction is non an like shooting fish in a barrel task, as well as this example overly illustrates the difficulties that such essay entails. The underlying issues that the example involves tin endure summarized every bit follows:
1. First, should the European courtroom follow AG’s Opinion it would hateful that the national judge, when deciding on the appeal, tin overturn the analysis performed past times the regulatory authority, every bit it already did amongst the outset national ruling; i.e. the national judiciary would endure acting every bit a de facto regulator. This results inwards an institutional conflict that slows downwards the integration of the telecoms marketplace –the example has been ongoing since 2010. In my view, this judicial spillover raises the interrogation every bit to whether the intervention of the national judiciary into the regulatory activity needs to endure balanced against the principles of equivalence as well as effectiveness inwards the context of the implementation of a non-binding instrument.
2. Secondly, the example casts doubts on the effectiveness of the sector-specific supervisory machinery seat inwards house nether Articles seven as well as 7a procedures of the Framework Directive, as well as the limits as well as actual effect of soft police describe every bit an integration tool.
3. Thirdly, the multi-level governance pattern upon which the sector is create raises the interrogation every bit to whether the national courtroom should endure entitled to determine the effective influence of national regulatory measures beyond the domestic marketplace. If the ECJ agrees amongst the Opinion, it would endure for the national approximate to determine on the effect of a national stair out on the Internal Market – something that should belong to the ECJ. This calls for farther answers concerning the viability of the telecoms market, every bit a fast-paced market, to coexist amongst divergences inwards Europe or, rather, whether the government should endure upgraded (e.g. to a greater extent than formal powers to the European Commission or the creation of a European Telecoms Agency, something that has failed so far).
4. Finally, the related work of edifice a unmarried marketplace for telecoms nether a multilevel governance system. Given the relevance of the example for other NRAs only about Europe that are facing like situations, most of the regulatory decisions from European NRAs involved investigations initiated past times the Commission nether the abovementioned Article 7a physical care for are on handle until the example is decided.
Conclusions
The example addresses classic as well as timely questions almost the role as well as legal effect of European Union soft law. In particular, when it comes to the effectiveness of soft police describe mechanisms for market-integration purposes; which is maybe the most interesting facial expression of the case.
Whatever the concluding outcome volition be, it volition lead maintain remarkable consequences for the electrical flow configuration of the telecoms institutional as well as procedural framework. One possibility is that the European courtroom does non let the national judiciary to depart from the Recommendation. In such case, it would hateful that at that spot is no room for domestic adaptation as well as Article 7a physical care for would so attention to boost non-binding decisions from the Commission. However, the other possibility is that the courtroom follows AG’s interpretation. In my view, allowing departure from the Recommendation would homecoming Article 7a physical care for ineffective, provided that the national courtroom would define to what extent the effect on the Internal Market of a national regulatory determination is sufficient so every bit to justify a mandatory compliance amongst a non-binding European instrument.
Photo credit: ispreview.co.uk
[i] Political Guidelines for the side past times side European Commission – Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 New Start for Europe: My Agenda for Jobs, Growth, Fairness as well as Democratic Change (15 July 2014), Jean-Claude Juncker.
[ii] Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament as well as of the Council of seven March 2002 on a mutual regulatory framework for electronic communications networks as well as services (Framework Directive), every bit amended past times Directive 2009/140/EC as well as Regulation 544/2009.
[iii] Without much elaboration on the technical details, termination rates are the rates which telecoms networks accuse each other to deliver calls betwixt their respective networks; i.e. how much Galvanic cell operators tin accuse to connect calls on each other’s networks. The Commission Recommendation aims at harmonizing the costing methodology used inwards the calculation of toll caps for termination rates; Commission Recommendation (2009/396/EC) of seven May 2009 on the Regulatory Treatment of Fixed as well as Mobile Termination Rates inwards the EU. OJ L 20.5.2009, pp. 67-74.
[iv] OPTA (Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunicatie Autoriteit, "Independent Post as well as Telecommunications Authority", inwards English) was replaced past times a unmarried “super watchdog” body: the Netherlands Authority for Consumers as well as Markets (‘ACM’) after the merger of the Netherlands Competition Authority (NMa), the Netherlands Consumer Authority, as well as the Independent Post as well as Telecommunications Authority of the Netherlands (OPTA). ACM became operational every bit of 1st Apr 2013.
[v] CBb Judgment of 31st August 2011, 4.8.3.4.
[vi] Interestingly, the national courtroom poses question(s) of the legitimacy of the court to deviate from the Recommendation, but it does non refer to the NRA’s discretion to non follow the recommended costing methodology, which is the province of affairs inwards another Member States.
[vii] Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament as well as of the Council of seven March 2002 on access to, as well as interconnection of, electronic communications networks as well as associated facilities (Access Directive).
