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 T-692/20: Action brought on 18 November 2020 — Iliad Italia v Commission

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020TN0692

62020TN0692

November 18, 2020
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

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/70

(Case T-692/20)

(2021/C 19/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Iliad Italia SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Fosselard and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul Commission decision C(2020) 1573 final of 6 March 2020 not to oppose the notified operation in Case M.9674-Vodafone Italia / TIM / INWIT JV as modified by the commitments and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the functioning of the EEA Agreement;

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1.First plea in law, alleging that the commitments provide no clear definition or quantification of the minimum level of power required to satisfy the obligation to provide sufficient Free Space, which is a central pillar to the effectiveness of the commitments.

2.Second plea in law, alleging that the commitments fail to explicitly and clearly require the right for a new entrant to obtain, from the outset of the implementation of the commitments, hosting services covering the 700 MHz band, which is essential for the effective operation of a competing mobile network.

3.Third plea in law, alleging that the commitments do not expressly and clearly prohibit the parties from choosing inappropriate sites in discharging their obligation to provide access to new entrants, and the commitments provide no protection against the parties exercising bias in selecting which sites to provide access to.

4.Fourth plea in law, alleging that the commitments provide for an insufficient and unclear procedure for arranging access to relevant sites, resulting in new entrants being unable to make effective use of the sites offered under the commitments.

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