The applicants sought to challenge a proposed scheme regulating the prices of telephone calls.
Held: The principle objection was to termination charges, charges on calls between networks. The present charges were greater than the actual cost, and had the effect of transferring to users of fixed network telephones costs which were properly attributable to mobile phone users. They were being asked to subsidise such users. There was some social purpose in encouraging mobile phone use, but the policy of limiting such termination fees was not unreasonable. The power to control such charges arose when an operator came to enjoy a position equivalent to dominance, and even on those not so designated. The Commission’s and the Director’s interpretation of Section 3(1)(a) was not unlawful; a broad interpretation, including concepts of equity and fairness was legitimate.
The Honourable Mr Justice Moses
 EWHC 1555 (Admin)
Directive 2002/19, Directive 2002/20, Directive 2002/21, Telecommunications Act 1984 3
England and Wales
Cited – Telefonica de Espana ECJ 13-Dec-2001
Telefonica challenged Spanish legislation requiring it to offer interconnection at local and higher-level switching centres. It contended that that should only be a matter of agreement between operators. It was recorded that Telefonica had been . .
Cited – Inter-Environnement Wallonie v Region Wallonne ECJ 18-Dec-1997
ECJ Member States are required to refrain from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the results prescribed by a Directive, even though the date for its implementation has not yet expired.
The . .
Cited – Regina v Director General of Telecommunications, Ex P Cellcom Ltd and others QBD 7-Dec-1998
The Director General of Telecommunications can quite properly use his powers and discretion to ensure competition in telecommunications by the granting and withholding of licences. He may take account of economic factors in making such a decision. . .
Cited – Regina v Monopolies and Mergers Commission, ex parte South Yorkshire Transport Ltd HL 1993
One bus company took over another, giving it an effective monopoly within the region. The Commission considered that the area involved was sufficiently substantial to cause concern that it may operate against the public interest. At first instance . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.184034