Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DE FR IT EN
Analyser dans Legislator
6 B 39/10, 6 B 39/10 (6 C 3/11) Généré par l'IA

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

Numéro de cause 6 B 39/10, 6 B 39/10 (6 C 3/11)
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Allemagne (DE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Admis (Allowed)
Ouvrir la source officielle Version Markdown lisible par machine (.md)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

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.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

§ 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.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
protection de la bonne foi litige non administratif mise des frais de procédure motifs valables régulation des services numériques droits d'accès privilégiés

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
§ 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.
Généré par l'IA
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

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
§ 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.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

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).