Examples of using Contested act in English and their translations into Polish
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Financial
-
Official/political
-
Programming
-
Computer
However, the contested act does not contain an operative part.
It found that the principle of proportionality had been infringed and annulled the contested act.
It follows that the context in which the contested act was adopted shows that it produces no binding legal effects.
The contested act in this case is a Commission's letter of comments on the basis of Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21.
The Commission and the Kingdom of Spain submit that the contested act is not one which is amenable to review under Article 230 EC.
In this respect, it is sufficient to note that the fact that Article 7(5)of Directive 2002/21 is reproduced merely confirms the nonbinding nature of the contested act see paragraph 93 above.
It must therefore be held that the contested act is not of direct concern to Vodafone for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
The contested act does not therefore produce binding legal effects and the way the cases cited in the previous paragraph were decided cannot therefore be transposed to the present case.
The Commission and the Kingdom of Spain submit that the contested act is not of direct concern to Vodafone within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
The contested act which gave rise to the judgment in Infront WM v Commission, cited in paragraph 53 above, was a Commission letter in which it had found that measures in the United Kingdom which had been notified to it on the basis of Article 3a of Directive 89/552 were compatible.
Vodafone's arguments based on the safeguarding of its procedural rights do not therefore warrant the contested act being characterised as an act amenable to review under Article 230 EC either.
The first comment of the contested act affects the legal position of the CMT at the very most so far as concerns future market reviews which it would carry out.
VODAFONE ESPAÑA AND VODAFONE GROUP v COMMISSION case, however,in view of the CMT's leeway in implementing the contested act, limited as it might be, that act must be regarded as not directly affecting Vodafone's legal situation.
Vodafone submits that the contested act produces legal effects that are binding on it and capable of affecting its interests within the meaning of the caselaw cited at paragraph 69 above.
The comments made by the Commission in a letter under Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21, such as the contested act in this case, do not produce any binding legal effect either vis-à-vis the notifying NRA or vis-à-vis other NRAs.
It follows that, even if the contested act did constitute an act amenable to review under Article 230 CE, Vodafone does not have the standing to bring proceedings required by the fourth paragraph of that article.
In a fourth comment, which relates to the close monitoring of the market and entry of the fourth mobile network operator,the Commission observed in the contested act that Xfera had not yet entered the market and it invited‘the Spanish authorities to explore appropriate measures in order to ensure efficient use of the available spectrum.
It further states that the contested act directly affected its legal position by depriving it of the procedural rights which it would have enjoyed during the second phase of the examination.
In a second comment, which concerns the focal point,the Commission noted in the contested act that the CMT had found the existence of such a point, which was transparent, consisting in the denial of wholesale access to third parties.
Nor does that comment of the contested act change the legal position of the CMTso far as concerns the adoption of the measure that it had notified to the Commission(and to the other NRAs), and still less Vodafone's legal position.
Despite the fact that the CMT had not identified a focal point at the retail level,which was not indispensable, the Commission deemed it plausible in the contested act, in the light of the alignment of commercial strategies of the three network operators, that the slightest deviation towards more aggressive price competition should be easily detected.
That comment in the contested act does not change the legal position of the CMT either insofar as concerns the adoption of the measure which it had notified to the Commission(and to the other NRAs) and still less Vodafone's legal position.
The omission to which Vodafone refers can be explained by the fact that the contested act falls entirely within the scope of the procedure of Article 7(3), and that the conditions of Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/21 are not satisfied.
Thus, in its first comment in the contested act relating to the competitive conditions at the retail level, the Commission noted that the CMT had not found collective dominance at the retail market and observed in that respect that‘in order to find[joint significant market power] in the wholesale market of mobile access and call origination, it[was] not indispensable to find[joint significant market power] at the retail level.
Vodafone submits, first, that it is apparent from the content andthe context in which it was adopted that the contested act constitutes an authorisation decision, by which the Commission endorsed the CMT's draft measure and decided not to initiate the second phase of the procedure under Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/21.
Nor can Vodafone's argument that the contested act is of direct concern to it on account of the procedural rights of which it is deprived by the decision not to initiate the second phase of the procedure provided for in Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/21 succeed.
It states in that respect that it is part of a group of only three undertakings which are specifically referred to in the contested act, that it was the subject of the imposition of ex ante control obligations under Article 16 of Directive 2002/21 and that it is furthermore an interested party within the meaning of Article 6 of the Directive.
In the present case, however, the contested act does not expressly declare the notified measure compatible with Community law, nor does it have the effect of changing the law applicable to the notified measure.
In any event,the Court considers that even if the contested act did constitute an act open to challenge, Vodafone would not have standing to bring proceedings for the reasons set out below.
Lastly, Vodafone submits that the contested act is of individual concern to it within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, and moreover this does not appear to be contested by the Commission.