15.4.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/23


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 20 December 2018 — Telenor Magyarország Zrt. v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnöke

(Case C-807/18)

(2019/C 139/22)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Telenor Magyarország Zrt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság Elnöke

Questions referred

1.

Must a commercial agreement between a provider of internet access services and an end user under which the service provider charges the end user a zero-cost tariff for certain applications (that is to say, the traffic generated by a given application is not taken into account for the purposes of data usage and does not slow down once the contracted data volume has been used), and under which that provider engages in discrimination which is confined to the terms of the commercial agreement concluded with the end consumer and is directed only against the end user party to that agreement and not against any end user not a party to it, be interpreted in the light of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 (1) laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union (ʻthe Regulation’)?

2.

If the first question referred is answered in the negative, must Article 3(3) of the Regulation be interpreted as meaning that — having regard also to recital 7 of the Regulation — an assessment of whether there is an infringement requires an impact- and market-based evaluation which determines whether and to what extent the measures adopted by the internet access services provider do actually limit the rights which Article 3(1) of the Regulation confers on the end user?

3.

Notwithstanding the first and second questions referred for a preliminary ruling, must Article 3(3) of the Regulation be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition laid down therein is a general and objective one, so that it prohibits any traffic management measure which distinguishes between certain forms of internet content, regardless of whether the internet access services provider draws those distinctions by means of an agreement, a commercial practice or some other form of conduct?

4.

If the third question is answered in the affirmative, can an infringement of Article 3(3) of the Regulation also be found to exist solely on the basis that there is discrimination, without the further need for a market and impact evaluation, so that an evaluation under Article 3(1) and (2) of the Regulation is unnecessary in such circumstances?


(1)  OJ 2015 L 310, p. 1.