Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/6

(Case C-515/19) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Telecommunications sector - Harmonised use of radio spectrum in the 2 GHz frequency bands for bringing into operation systems providing mobile satellite services - Decision No 626/2008/EC - Article 2(2)(a) and (b) - Article 4(1)(c)(ii) - Article 7(1) and (2) - Article 8(1) and (3) - Mobile satellite systems - Concept of ‘mobile earth station’ - Concept of ‘complementary ground components’ - Concept of ‘required quality’ - Respective role of satellite and ground components - Requirement for a selected operator of mobile satellite systems to provide service for a certain percentage of the population and territory - Non-compliance - Effect)

(2021/C 217/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eutelsat SA

Defendants: Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes, Inmarsat Ventures SE, formerly Inmarsat Ventures Ltd

Interveners: Viasat Inc., Viasat UK Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Decision No 626/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2008 on the selection and authorisation of systems providing mobile satellite services (MSS), read in conjunction with Article 8(1) and (3) of that decision, must be interpreted as meaning that a mobile satellite system does not have to be principally based, in terms of capacity of transmitted data, on the satellite component of that system and that complementary ground components of mobile satellite systems may be installed so as to cover the entire territory of the European Union, on the basis that that satellite component cannot ensure communications at any point of that territory with the ‘required quality’, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of that decision, understood as the level of quality necessary to provide the service offered by the operator of that system, provided that there is no distortion of competition and that that satellite component has real and specific usefulness, in that such a component must be necessary for the functioning of the mobile satellite system, save where there is independent operation of the complementary ground components, in the case of failure of the satellite component, which must not exceed 18 months;

2.The concept of ‘mobile earth station’, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Decision No 626/2008, must be interpreted as not requiring that, in order to fall within that concept, such a station is capable of communicating, without the use of separate equipment, with both a complementary ground component and a satellite;

3.Article 8(1) of Decision No 626/2008, read in conjunction with Article 7(1) of that decision, must be interpreted as meaning that, where it is established that an operator selected in accordance with Title II of that decision and authorised to use the radio spectrum pursuant to Article 7 of that decision has failed to provide mobile satellite services by means of a mobile satellite system by the deadline set in Article 4(1)(c)(ii) of Decision No 626/2008, the competent authorities of the Member States are not entitled to refuse to grant the authorisations necessary for the provision of complementary ground components of mobile satellite systems to that operator on the ground that that operator has failed to honour the commitment given in its application.

* Language of the case: English.

(1) OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.