IT, Media and Telecommunications Newsletter No. 3/2010
Decision no. 226/2010 issued by the National Authority for Management and Regulation in Communications of Romania (“ANCOM”) amending and supplementing the Decision of the president of the General Inspectorate for Communications and Information Technology no. 660/2005 on the approval of the Radio Communication Regulation of for the Amateur Service in Romania (hereinafter referred to as “Decision no. 226/2010”) was published in the Official Gazette no. 2235 as of April 14, 2010.
By Decision no. 226/2010, a number of amendments were made to the regulation regarding the amateur service in Romania, as follows:
1. Amendment of the references to the National Table allocating the radio frequency bands by reference to the provisions of the Order of the Minister of Communications and Information Society no. 789/2009 approving the National Table allocating the radio frequency bands;
2. Modification and supplementation of the radio frequency bands, in which activities specific to amateur services and amateur satellite services can be conducted in conformity with the National Table allocating the radio frequency bands;
3. Modification and update of the maximum power levels of the radio frequency carriers, in which activities specific to amateur services and amateur satellite services can be conducted in conformity with the National Table allocating the radio frequency bands;
4. Update of the frequency bands benefiting from carrier maximum powers of up to 1000 W;
5. The determination of clear conditions for the use of the radio frequency band 70.00 – 70.30 MHz.
Decision no. 178/2010 of the ANCOM president approving the regulation regarding the preparation by SOCIETATEA NAŢIONALĂ DE RADIOCOMUNICAŢII – S.A. of the cost calculation model based on the fully allocated cost method (hereinafter referred to as “Decision no. 178/2010”). Decision no. 178/2010, which will become effective as of June 1, 2010, provides the modality in which SOCIETATEA NAŢIONALA DE RADIOCOMUNICAŢII – S.A. (hereinafter referred to as “SNR”) will develop its cost calculation model to be applied in the process of substantiation depending on the costs of the tariffs for the services provided by SNR onto the regulated markets. Of the obligations imposed to SNR, we mention:
1. Including the weighted average cost of capital in the category of relevant costs to be recovered through the provision of regulated services;
2. The determination of the costs of the regulated services for the purpose of substantiating the SNR tariffs depending on the costs must take into account the specificity of the activity conducted by this provider, especially with respect to the shared use of the equipment and infrastructures of the network by different groups of services;
3. Reconciliation of the cost calculation model with the statutory financial statements of SNR, as prepared in conformity with the financial-accounting legislation;
4. Audit and publication of the cost calculation model;
5. The deadline for the preparation and implementation of the cost calculation model is 1 year as of the date Decision 178/2010 is adopted by ANCOM.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJE”) – Press Release no. 36/10 as of April 15, 2010, with respect to the Decision issued in the case C-511/08 Handelsgesellschaft Heinrich Heine GmbH / Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein – Westfalen eV .The Directive on the consumer protection in respect of distance contracts provides that a consumer may unilaterally terminate a distance contract within at least seven business days, without penalties and without specifying a reason. If the consumer exercises its right to unilaterally terminate the contract, the provider must repay, free of charge, the amounts paid. The only expenses that can be borne by the consumer due to exercising its right of withdrawal are the direct costs for returning the goods.The general sale conditions of the company Heinrich Heine provided that the consumer bears the amount of EUR 4.95 as costs of delivery. This amount is not repaid to the provider even if the consumer exercises its right to unilaterally terminate the contract. Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein Westfalen, a German consumer’s association, filed against Heinrich Heine an action requesting it to cease and desist such practice, as it found that, in the case of unilateral termination, the costs of delivery must not be borne by the consumer. According to Bundesgerichtshof (the Federal Court of Justice, Germany), which is the highest court with jurisdiction over the dispute, German law does not explicitly confer upon the consumer any right to be repaid the costs of delivery related to the goods ordered. Bundesgerichtshof asked CJE to interpret the directive.By issuing a decision in such a case, CJE found that the directive opposes a national regulation permitting the provider, within a distance contract, to charge the consumer with the costs of the delivery related to the goods, if the latter exercises its right to unilaterally terminate the contract.