Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
6 B 39/10, 6 B 39/10 (6 C 3/11) Generato dall'IA

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

Numero d'incarto 6 B 39/10, 6 B 39/10 (6 C 3/11)
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Germania (DE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'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.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'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.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
tutela della buona fede vertenza non amministrativa accollo delle spese procedurali motivi validi disciplina dei servizi digitali diritti di accesso privilegiati

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'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.
Generato dall'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

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'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.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

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).