Failure to submit a notification as an electronic communication service provider does not constitute a violation of a provision of public policy

Failure to submit a notification as an electronic communication service provider does not constitute a violation of a provision of public policy

Failure to submit a notification as an electronic communication service provider does not constitute a violation of a provision of public policy

21.12.2015 BE law

Pursuant to article 9 of the Act of 13 June 2005 on electronic communications (the “Act”), an electronic communication service provider (the “service provider”) must submit a notification to the Belgian regulator (the Belgian Institute for Postal Services and Telecommunication, the “BIPT”) before it can start offering its services.

In its decision of 6 November 2015, the Brussels Court of Appeal has ruled that this obligation does not constitute a provision of public order (“disposition d’ordre public”/”openbare order”). Consequently, its violation does not trigger the nullity of the contracts entered into by the operator who failed to submit a notification in accordance with article 9 of the Act.

This judgment was rendered after an appeal was lodged by a company (the electronic communication service provider) which was convicted to reimburse certain fees paid by another company pursuant to their contract for the provision of telephony services.  According to the first judge, failure to introduce a notification to the BIPT as an electronic communication service provider must trigger the nullity of the contract.

The Court of Appeal overruled this decision. The Court of Appeal pointed out that the Act implements in Belgian law the new European regulatory framework on electronic communication services and networks of 7 March 2002. This European regime ensures the freedom of operators to provide electronic communications networks and services. It does so by prohibiting Member States to impose an authorization obligation on those operators. Nevertheless, Member States remain entitled to set up a notification process which does not depend on any explicit decision or any other administrative act by the national regulatory authority.  In Belgium, such a possibility has been implemented in article 9 § 1 of the Act. However, the Court of Appeal noted that there is no sanction for notifications that are submitted late, i.e. after the service provider has started providing its services, neither in article 9 § 1 of the Act, nor in the Belgian Royal Decree of 7 March 2007 on the notification of electronic communication services and networks.   The Court of Appeal stressed that according to the Court of Cassation (“Belgian Supreme Court”), a rule can only be of a public order nature (“disposition d’ordre public”/”openbare order”) if it relates to essential national or collectivity’s interests or to rules establishing, in private law, the legal basis of the society’s moral or economic order.

The Court of Appeal also referred to another decision by the Court of Cassation according to which the mere fact that the violation of an obligation is subject to criminal sanctions does not mean that the agreements entered into in violation of this obligation are null and void.

Finally, the Court of Appeal clarified the ratio legis of this notification obligation and explained that it only aims at identifying new operators before their national regulatory authorities, and not at demonstrating their capacity to offer electronic communication services. Following the above, the Court of Appeal concluded that the notification obligation does not constitute a rule of public order (“disposition d’ordre public”/”openbare order”), and that its violation does not trigger the nullity of the agreements concluded by an operator which submitted such a declaration after the conclusion of agreements relating to electronic communication services.  Such a civil sanction would indeed be disproportionate in light of the recent developments in the European regulatory framework of the electronic communication sector.  


Related news

23.07.2019 LU law
The Revised CSSF Cloud Circular

Articles - On 27 March 2019, the Luxembourg supervisory authority for the financial sector (the Commission de surveillance du secteur financier or CSSF) published the long-awaited CSSF Circular 19/714 amending the CSSF Circular 17/654 on IT outsourcing relying on a cloud computing infrastructure (the Revised Cloud Circular).

Read more

15.07.2019 EU law
ICO to impose record-breaking fines for inadequate security measures and data breaches

Short Reads - Though the European data protection authorities have taken their time in enforcing the GDPR, two announcements by the ICO in the UK regarding proposed fines for British Airways and Marriott demonstrate that large fines are about to start landing regularly. Both of the substantial fines are to be handed out as a result of shortcomings in handling data breaches caused by cyber-attacks.

Read more

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

Read more

05.07.2019 EU law
The two sides of the ECS coin

Articles - The concept of ‘electronic communications service’ (“ECS”) defined in Article 2(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC (“Framework Directive”) has been interpreted in two decisions of the ECJ in June 2019: C‑142/18 Skype communications and C-193/18 Google LLC.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring