22.4.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/3

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln by order of that court of 26 January 2006 in Arcor AG & Co. KG v Federal Republic of Germany, interested party: Deutsche Telekom AG

(Case C-55/06)

(2006/C 96/05)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Administrative Court, Cologne) (Germany) of 26 January 2006, received at the Court Registry on 2 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Arcor AG & Co. KG and Federal Republic of Germany, interested party: Deutsche Telekom AG, on the following questions:

1.

Is Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000 (1) to be understood as meaning that the conditions for cost-orientation under Article 3(3) of that regulation lay down minimum requirements in the sense that national law of the Member States may not deviate from that standard to the prejudice of beneficiaries?

2.

Are imputed interest and cost-accounting depreciation also encompassed by the cost-orientation requirement under Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000?

3.

If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative:

(a)

Is the calculation basis for that interest and depreciation the replacement value of the assets after the depreciation made prior to the time of valuation, or is the calculation basis exclusively the current replacement value, expressed in terms of current daily prices at the time of valuation?

(b)

In any event, do the costs used as the calculation basis for imputed interest and cost-accounting depreciation, in particular those which are not directly associated with service (overheads), have to be proven by comprehensible documents detailing the costs of the notified operator?

(c)

If Question 3(b) is to be answered either entirely or partially in the negative:

May the costs alternatively be proven by a valuation made on the basis of an analytical cost model?

Which methodological and other substantive requirements do those alternative methods of valuation have to satisfy?

(d)

Is the national regulatory authority entitled, when assessing cost-orientation in the context of its authority under Article 4(1) to (3) of Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000, to a so-called scope for evaluation which is subject only to limited judicial control?

(e)

If Question 3(d) is to be answered in the affirmative:

Is that scope also applicable, in particular, to methods of cost calculation and questions of determining the appropriate amount of imputed interest (for borrowed and/or own capital) and appropriate depreciation periods?

Where do the boundaries of that scope lie?

(f)

Do the cost-orientation requirements at least serve to protect the rights of competitors as beneficiaries, with the consequence that those competitors can make use of legal protection against rates for access which are not set on the basis of cost-orientation?

(g)

Does the notified operator bear the burden of unprovability (burden of proof) if, in the supervisory procedure under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000 or in the subsequent judicial proceedings, costs are totally or partially unverifiable?

(h)

If Questions 3(f) and 3(g) are to be answered in the affirmative:

Is the burden of proof for the cost-orientation also on the notified operator if a beneficiary competitor brings an action against rates approved by a regulatory authority under national law on the ground that, since they were not set on the basis of cost-orientation, the approved rates for access are too high?

(1)  OJ 2000 L 336, p. 4.