- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-1/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Base Company NV, formerly KPN Group Belgium NV, Mobistar NV v Ministerraad (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/22/EC — Articles 4, 9, 13 and 32 — Universal service obligations and social obligations — Provision of access at a fixed location and provision of telephone services — Affordability of tariffs — Special tariff options — Financing of the universal service obligations — Additional mandatory services — Mobile communication services and/or internet subscription services)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62014CA0001
62014CA0001
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
(Case C-1/14) (*1)
In Case C-41/24,
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the High Court (Ireland), made by decision of 1 December 2023, received at the Court on 22 January 2024, in the proceedings
Waltham Abbey Residents Association
An Bord Pleanála,
Ireland,
The Attorney General,
notice party:
O’Flynn Construction Co. Unlimited Company,
THE COURT (Tenth Chamber),
composed of D. Gratsias, President of the Chamber, J. Passer (Rapporteur) and B. Smulders, Judges,
Advocate General: J. Kokott,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having regard to the written procedure,
Language of the case: Dutch
C2702015EN520120150611EN00065262
Directive 2002/22/EC 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), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the special tariffs and the financing mechanism provided for in Articles 9 and 13(1)(b) of that directive respectively apply to internet subscription services requiring a connection to the internet at a fixed location, but not to mobile communication services, including internet subscription services provided by means of those mobile communication services. If those services are made publicly available within the national territory as ‘additional mandatory services’ for the purposes of Article 32 of Directive 2002/22, as amended by Directive 2009/136, they cannot be financed, under national law, by a mechanism involving specific undertakings.
* * *
(*1) OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.