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
EN
2013/C 352/17
Language of the case: French
Applicant: Belgacom SA, continuing the proceedings brought by Belgacom Mobile SA
Defendant: Province de Namur
1.Must Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) be interpreted to mean that it precludes legislation of a national or local authority which imposes, for budgetary purposes outside the purposes of that authorisation, a tax on mobile communications infrastructures used in the context of performing activities covered by a general authorisation granted pursuant to that directive (as the case may be, distinguishing the situation in which those infrastructures are established on private property from the situation in which they are established on public property)?
2.Must Article 6(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) be interpreted to mean that it precludes legislation of a national or local authority which imposes, for budgetary purposes outside the purposes of that authorisation, a tax on mobile communications infrastructures which does not feature among the conditions listed in Part A of the annex to that directive, in particular as it does not constitute an administrative charge within the terms of Article 12?
OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.