Consumers: 3414 results found Export XML

Judgement by the Brussels Court of Appeal (Market Chamber, Market Court section) of 19 April 2017 annulling the Decision of the BIPT Council of 20 May 2014 imposing an administrative fine on Proximus for non-compliance, in the context of the WBA VDSL2 reference offer, with the transparency obligation

Opinion of the European Commission of 21 April 2017 (MTR)

Database asbl Arabia TV (Arabia Channel) is authorised to provide the audiovisual media service applied for, from 24 April 2013, for a nine-year period, in the bilingual Brussels-Capital Region

The decision concerns the withdrawal of the rights of use of Broadband Belgium in the 10.5 GHz frequency band.

In this opinion for the attention of the Minister BIPT can describe the purpose of said draft Act, i.e. a correct interpretation of the data in the tariff simulator in order to allow the consumer to make his choice based on an actual consumption. BIPT however also points out specific risks this draft Act may entail, namely the implementation and security costs, the proportionality of the legislation in question and the risks for smaller operators.

Judgement of the Brussels Court of Appeal of 22 March 2017 stating the withdrawal of Proximus from its appeal for annulment and suspension against the BIPT decision regarding the approval and publication of the specifications ‘One Time Fees’ and ‘Isla Repair’ No 2016/APA/OTF

The deadline for replying is 28 april 2017, included. Address: consultation.sg@bipt.be. The subject of the e-mail shall at least mention the reference "CONSULT-2017-A6”. The contact person is Jimmy Smedts (02 226 88 22). Answers shall be sent by e-mail exclusively to the address indicated. The document should clearly state what is confidential. If the answer contains confidential information, it must be accompanied by a non-confidential version of the reply.

Judgement of the Court of Cassation of 23 March 2017 rejecting the appeal lodged by Coditel and AIESH against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 13 May 2015 dismissing the actions for annulment against four decisions adopted on 1 July 2011 by the Conference of regulators in the electronic communications sector (CRC) regarding the analysis of the television broadcast market.

BIPT decides to impose an administrative penalty on EDPnet because in a number of cases this operator prevents customers from cancelling their contracts at the moment of their choosing and charges a cancellation fee.

BIPT accepts that turnover and the percentage of the fine are confidential in this case. As to the other elements of the decision BIPT does not see nor does EDPnet indicate in what sense they could be regarded as confidential, i.e. as corporate and manufacturing data essential to EDPnet.