Examples of using Regtp in English and their translations into German
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Medicine
-
Financial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Political
-
Computer
-
Programming
-
Official/political
-
Political
RegTP has failed to provide such evidence.
Deutsche Telekom has informed the RegTP of its new charges for mobile termination.
Thus, RegTP finds in its decision of 29 April 2003 that.
Regulatory Authority for Telecommunications and Posts RegTP which is divided into several narrow frequency bands frequency channels.
Even if RegTP had infringed a Community rule and even if the Commission could have initiated proceedings.
In spite of this you are obliged to apply for a frequency allotment at the relevant external RegTP branch in the region where the product will be used.
RegTP has however concluded that only the incumbent operator Deutsche Telekom AG(DT) has significant market power.
On 15 January 2002, the applicant informed RegTP that it proposed to increase its monthly charges for analogue and ISDN lines by EUR 0.56.
RegTP is required to withdraw its draft measures as regards the markets for call termination on the networks of the ANOs.
A new price cap system was adopted by decision of RegTP of 21 December 2001 and has been in effect since 1 January 2002 Amtsblatt(RegTP) 2/2002, of 6 February.
RegTP follows a similar reasoning in its decisions of 8 February 1999, 30 March 2001, 21 December 2001 and 11 April 2002.
In addition, it notedthat the German legal framework did not preclude RegTP from authorising proposed charges which are contrary to Article 82 EC.
RegTP should therefore refuse a retail price adjustment sought by the applicant if the prices contravene Article 82 EC, particularly because of an anticompetitive margin squeeze.
In addition, in its judgment of 16 January 2002,the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf held that responsibility for the charges set by RegTP could not be attributed to the applicant.
It is true that RegTP examined the issue of the margin squeeze in a number of its decisions, particularly those of 8 February 1999, 30 March 2001, 21 December 2001, 11 April 2002 and 29 April 2003.
At the hearing the applicant pointed out that, during the period from 1January 1998 to 31 December 2001, RegTP had to investigate compliance with the price ceilings separately in respect of business and private customers.
First, as far as narrowband connections are concerned(analogue andISDN lines), the applicant explains that, under German law, all its retail prices had to be examined and approved in advance by RegTP or, before 1998, by the BMPT.
The NRA(Regulierungsbehörde für Telekommunikation und Post- RegTP) has defined and analysed 54 markets for call termination on individual public telephone networks provided at a fixed location in Germany.
By way of this veto decision, is it the Commission'sintention to set a precedent against Germany because it fears that RegTP will not appropriately assess the markets for call termination on individual mobile networks?
Since November 1998 RegTP is investigating, in the legally foreseen co-operation with the German Federal Cartel Office(Bundeskartellamt), an alleged collusive behaviour of T-Mobil, Mannesmann and E-Plus on the fees for terminating calls in their respective networks.
Second, it must be noted that the provisions ofthe TKG in force since 1 August 1996 do not indicate that RegTP considers whether applications for the adjustment of retail charges for access to analogue or ISDN lines are compatible with Article 82 EC.
Paradoxically, RegTP has in practice introduced price regulation for a number of ANOs through dispute resolution procedures since 2004 and it intends to maintain this price regulation, despite its finding that ANOs do not have significant market power.
In considering in its decision of 29 April 2003 whether the applicant's charges were leading to amargin squeeze that would distort competition, RegTP also regarded as decisive the fact that the applicant's competitors are in a position to obtain additional revenue from call services.
When that first period ended on 31 December 1999, RegTP- by decision of 23 December 1999- essentially maintained the composition of the baskets and lowered the prices by a further 5.6% in the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2001 second price cap period.
It must be observed furthermore that, in its judgment of 10 February 2004 setting aside the judgment of the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf of 16 January 2002,the Bundesgerichtshof confirmed that‘the administrative examination procedure[undertaken by RegTP] does not preclude the possibility in practice of an undertaking submitting a charge by which it abuses its dominant position and obtains authorisation for it because the abuse is not revealed during the examination procedure.
On 2 February 2001,following a number of complaints from competitors of the applicant, RegTP initiated a retrospective investigation of the applicant's ADSL prices in order to determine whether there was any practice of belowcost selling, contrary to the German rules on competition.
As regards the judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof(Federal Court of Justice, Germany) of 10 February 2004, setting aside the judgment of the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf of 16 January 2002,the applicant submits that that judgment confirms that RegTP checks whether a charge to which a request for authorisation relates is compatible with Article 82 EC and that responsibility for any infringement of Article 82 EC can only exceptionally be ascribed to the undertaking which applied for the charge to be authorised.