EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-1/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 2 January 2014 — KPN Group Belgium NV and Mobistar NV v Ministerraad Intervener: Belgacom NV

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CN0001

62014CN0001

January 2, 2014
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

7.4.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/12

(Case C-1/14)

2014/C 102/16

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KPN Group Belgium NV and Mobistar NV

Defendant: Ministerraad

Questions referred

1.Should Directive 2002/22/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), and in particular Articles 9 and 32 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the social tariff for universal service as well as the compensation mechanism provided for in Article 13(1)(b) of the Universal Service Directive are not only applicable to electronic communications by means of a telephone connection at a fixed location to a public communications network but also to electronic communications by means of mobile communication services and/or internet subscriptions?

2.Should Article 9(3) of the Universal Service Directive be interpreted as allowing Member States to add special tariff options to the universal service for services other than those defined in Article 9(2) of the universal service?

3.If the answers to the first and second questions are in the negative, are the relevant provisions of the Universal Service Directive compatible with the principle of equality, as set out inter alia in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? (2)

(1) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51.

(2) OJ 2000 L 364, p. 1.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia