Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
6 B 16/14, 6 B 16/14 (6 C 44/14) AI generated

Telecommunications regulation: extent of agency discretion in determining efficient cost recovery hourly rates under §§ 31, 32 TKG and standards for judicial review

Case Number 6 B 16/14, 6 B 16/14 (6 C 44/14)
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) granted leave to appeal (Revisionszulassung) in favor of the co-intervenor, overturning the lower instance's refusal and remanding the case for review on the merits. The dispute concerned telecommunications regulation, specifically the challenge against the Federal Network Agency's methodology for determining the costs of efficient service availability, including the relevant hourly rates used to calculate one-time fees. The court found the matter to be of fundamental legal significance under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, establishing the need to clarify whether and to what extent the Telecommunications Act (TKG), particularly §§ 31 Abs. 2 Satz 1 and 32 Abs. 1 Satz 1 (2012 version), grants the agency a margin of discretion (Beurteilungsspielraum) in setting these hourly rates and what standards apply for judicial review of such regulatory decisions.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 und 3 GKG; Telecommunications regulation: extent of agency discretion in determining efficient cost recovery hourly rates under §§ 31, 32 TKG and standards for judicial review: The dispute concerned telecommunications regulation, specifically the challenge against the Federal Network Agency's methodology for determining the costs of efficient service availability, including the relevant hourly rates used to calculate one-time fees. The court found the matter to be of fundamental legal significance under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, establishing the need to clarify whether and to what extent the Telecommunications Act (TKG), particularly §§ 31 Abs. 2 Satz 1 and 32 Abs. 1 Satz 1 (2012 version), grants the agency a margin of discretion (Beurteilungsspielraum) in setting these hourly rates and what standards apply for judicial review of such regulatory decisions.

Keywords

AI generated
administrative discretion cost recovery value in dispute legal fees judicial review telecommunications services

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Ground for granting leave to appeal due to the case having fundamental significance.
§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG
Procedural rule applied for setting the value in dispute in both the complaint and revision proceedings.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Basis for the provisional setting of the value in dispute for the revision proceedings.
§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3 GKG
Basis for setting the value in dispute for the complaint proceedings.
AI generated
6 B 12/14, 6 B 12/14 (6 C 40/14)
Telecommunications regulation: judicial review standards for the agency's discretion in calculating efficient service costs under § 31, 32 TKG
6 B 14/14, 6 B 14/14 (6 C 42/14)
Scope of judicial review over regulatory agency discretion in calculating efficient hourly rates for one-time telecommunications fees under the TKG
6 B 11/14, 6 B 11/14 (6 C 39/14)
Scope of judicial review of telecom regulator's discretion in calculating efficient cost hourly rates under TKG
6 C 41/14
Extent of judicial review of regulatory authority's efficiency assessment of hour rates in telecom fee approvals
6 B 13/14, 6 B 13/14 (6 C 41/14)
Discretionary assessment in determining efficient service provision costs under the Telecommunications Act

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Ground for granting leave to appeal due to the case having fundamental significance.

§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3 GKG

Basis for setting the value in dispute for the complaint proceedings.

§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG

Procedural rule applied for setting the value in dispute in both the complaint and revision proceedings.

§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Basis for the provisional setting of the value in dispute 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

Revisionszulassung; Telekommunikation; Entgeltregulierung

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde der Beigeladenen gegen die Nichtzulassung der Revision ist begründet. Die Rechtssache hat die geltend gemachte grundsätzliche Bedeutung (§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO). Sie kann zur Klärung der Frage beitragen, ob und ggf. inwieweit das Telekommunikationsgesetz der Bundesnetzagentur bei der Ermittlung der Kosten der effizienten Leistungsbereitstellung nach § 31 Abs. 2 Satz 1 des Telekommunikationsgesetzes vom 22. Juni 2004 (TKG) bzw. nach § 32 Abs. 1 Satz 1 TKG in der Fassung des Gesetzes vom 3. Mai 2012 (BGBl I S. 958) in Bezug auf die Stundensätze, die der Ermittlung von (Einmal-)Entgelten zugrunde liegen, einen Beurteilungsspielraum einräumt und nach welchen Maßstäben insoweit die gerichtliche Kontrolle erfolgt.

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