C-448/99

I-609

OPINION OF MR LÉGER — CASE C-448/99

attached to any individual licence is pub- 30 days granted to the applicant to allow lished in an appropriate manner. him to submit his observations, 6and a further period of 15 days for the ILT, following receipt of those observations. 7 The minister then has another 15 days within which to make his decision; 8the total period may therefore be three and a half months or more. 8. Not all of the information required under that article has been published. The Grand-Ducal Regulation provided for by Article 7(2)(e) of the Luxembourg Law of 21 March 1997 on telecommunications 3 has not been adopted in so far as concerns the conditions governing specifications for the operation of a radio paging service. 11. The Commission points out that, under Article 9(2) of the Directive, such an exten- sion of the statutory time-limit is not automatic and may be allowed only in specific cases. It maintains that, by failing to provide that an applicant must be 9. The Commission also maintains that the informed, within a period of six weeks, of obligation imposed by the second indent of the decision taken on his licence applica- Article 9(2) of the Directive, which requires tion, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has Member States intending to grant indivi- not fulfilled its obligation under the Direc- dual licences to set reasonable time-limits, tive. being not more than six weeks after receipt of the application, has been incorrectly transposed.

12. In its defence, the Luxembourg Gov- 10. Under Article 4(4) of the Grand-Ducal ernment states that a draft Grand-Ducal Regulation of 2 July 1998 establishing the Regulation laying down the conditions criteria and procedures for granting tele- governing specifications for the establish- communications licences at the request of ment and operation of a radio paging the applicant, 4the period allowed for the service was submitted for its opinion to Institut Luxembourgeois des Télécommu- the Conseil d'État (Council of State) on nications (Luxembourg Telecommunica- 7 December 1999 and communicated to tions Institute) 5to consider the application the Commission at the beginning of is six weeks, to which is added a period of December 1999. It adds that the opinion

15. It should be borne in mind that the Directive concerns the procedures associ- ated with the granting of authorisations, and the conditions attached to such author- isations, for the purpose of providing telecommunications services, including authorisations for the establishment and 13. With regard to the complaint that the operation of the telecommunications net- Directive has been incorrectly transposed, works required for the provision of such the Luxembourg Government maintains services. 9 that Article 5 of the 1998 Regulation accords with Article 9(2) of the Directive. It argues that Article 9(2) should be inter- preted as requiring the Member State concerned to inform the applicant, within the prescribed time-limit, of the decision taken on his application, not to issue him with a definitive licence within that period. Article 5 of the 1998 Regulation provides 16. Under the first paragraph of Article 25, that the applicant is to receive a draft the Member States are required to bring licence or a draft refusal. into force the laws, regulations and admin- istrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive and to publish the conditions and procedures attached to authorisations as soon as possible and, in any event, not later than 31 December 1997. They must immediately inform the Commission thereof.

14. In its reply, the Commission points out that the Luxembourg authorities do not deny the infringement. It adds that the Directive requires that the applicant be informed, within a period of six weeks, of a decision granting or refusing him a licence. In contrast, the procedure as regulated by 17. As regards the Commission's first com- Luxembourg law results in a period of plaint, it should be noted that the Luxem- three and a half months or more — a great deal longer, therefore, than the six weeks prescribed by the Directive. 9 — Article1(1).

18. It should therefore be held that Arti- cle 8(3) of the Directive has not been fully transposed, since there is no legislation and establishing the conditions governing spe- cifications for the operation of a radio paging service or, in any event, that legisla- tion has not been adopted within the time- limit prescribed by the Directive. — it shall set reasonable time limits; inter alia, it shall inform the applicant of its decision as soon as possible but not more than six weeks after receiving the application. In the provisions adopted to implement this Directive, Member States may extend this time limit to up to four months in objectively justified cases which have been defined specifi- cally in those provisions. In the case of 19. As regards the Commission's second comparative bidding procedures in par- complaint, that the Grand Duchy of Lux- ticular, Member States may further embourg has failed to apply Article 9(2) of extend this time limit by up to four the Directive, it is worth noting the precise months. These time limits shall be wording of that provision. without prejudice to any applicable

I - 612

COMMISSION V LUXEMBOURG

international agreements relating to national authorities within a period of six international frequency and satellite weeks is not necessarily definitive. coordination.'

2 3 . As is clear from the defence, the Luxembourg Government maintains that 26. Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of the Member States have to inform the Procedure of the Court of Justice, the applicant 'of the decision taken on his unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay application' but are not required to issue the costs if they have been applied for in the him with a definitive licence within that successful party's pleadings. Since the Com- period. Read in the light of Articles 4 and 5 mission has applied for costs and the Grand of the 1998 Regulation, this expression Duchy of Luxembourg has been unsuccess- reveals that, in that text, the decision of ful, the latter must be ordered to pay the which the applicant must be notified by the costs.

I-613

OPINION OF MR LÉGER — CASE C-448/99

Conclusion

27. I therefore propose that the Court should declare that:

(1) By failing to bring into force within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in order to comply with Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.