Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
6 B 39/10, 6 B 39/10 (6 C 3/11) AI generated

Regulatory authorization of higher access charges: scope of legitimate expectations (Vertrauensschutz) arising from prior limited-period approval of lower rates for competitors

Case Number 6 B 39/10, 6 B 39/10 (6 C 3/11)
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) allowed the non-admission complaint, prevailing for the co-defendant, and ordered the case to proceed to full revision to resolve a question of fundamental legal significance. The dispute concerned telecommunications regulatory law, specifically challenging whether a limited-period authorization for low access charges granted to a regulated operator creates a protection of legitimate expectations (Vertrauensschutz) for competitors that prevents the subsequent authorization of higher access charges for the remaining period. The decisive legal basis for this procedural outcome is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, which grants access to revision if the case has fundamental significance, while the cost and dispute value determinations rely on §§ 47, 52, and 63 GKG.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 52 Abs. 3 GKG, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 und 3 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 3 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 3, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; Regulatory authorization of higher access charges: scope of legitimate expectations (Vertrauensschutz) arising from prior limited-period approval of lower rates for competitors: The dispute concerned telecommunications regulatory law, specifically challenging whether a limited-period authorization for low access charges granted to a regulated operator creates a protection of legitimate expectations (Vertrauensschutz) for competitors that prevents the subsequent authorization of higher access charges for the remaining period. The decisive legal basis for this procedural outcome is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, which grants access to revision if the case has fundamental significance, while the cost and dispute value determinations rely on §§ 47, 52, and 63 GKG.

Keywords

AI generated
protection of legitimate expectations non-administrative dispute charging of procedural costs justified grounds regulation of digital services privileged rights of access

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for the verdict, cited to justify that the non-admission complaint is justified because the case has fundamental legal significance.
§ 52 Abs. 3 GKG
§ 52 Abs. 3 GKG; die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
3, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG).
§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 3 GKG
Procedural rule applied to determine the disputed value for the complaint proceedings.
§ 47 Abs. 1 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 3, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Procedural rule applied to determine the provisional disputed value for the revision proceedings.
AI generated
6 B 40/10, 6 B 40/10 (6 C 4/11)
Trust protection for competitors regarding time-limited regulatory approval of higher access charges
6 B 9/19
Binding effect of a final but substantively defective telecommunications regulatory order on subsequent fee approval methodology
6 C 24/15
Scope of privatrechtsgestaltende Wirkung of telecommunication fee approval under § 37(2) TKG
6 C 42/14
Scope of Judicial Review for Regulatory Fee Approval: Rejection of Discretionary Margin for Efficiency Assessment of Hourly Rates in Telecommunications Access Fees
6 B 16/13
Maintenance of telecommunications regulatory fee approval: No special duty to substantiate changed market conditions by the affected operator

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Main ground for the verdict, cited to justify that the non-admission complaint is justified because the case has fundamental legal significance.

§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 3 GKG

Procedural rule applied to determine the disputed value for the complaint proceedings.

§ 47 Abs. 1 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 3, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Procedural rule applied to determine the provisional disputed value for the revision proceedings.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde; Telekommunikation; Regulierung; Vorleistungsentgelt

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde der Beigeladenen gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision ist begründet. Die Rechtssache hat grundsätzliche Bedeutung (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO). Sie kann zur Klärung der Frage beitragen, inwieweit eine dem regulierten Unternehmen erteilte befristete Genehmigung von Vorleistungsentgelten Vertrauensschutz zugunsten der Wettbewerber im Hinblick auf eine später für den Restzeitraum erteilte Genehmigung höherer Entgelte entfaltet.

Die Streitwertfestsetzung für das Beschwerdeverfahren folgt aus § 47 Abs. 1 und 3 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 3 GKG; die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 3, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG).