Article 3
This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic. Done at Brussels, 4 October 1995. For the Commission Karel VAN MIERT Member of the Commission (1) OECD study, published 24 February 1993. (1) Case 311/84, Centre belge d'études de marché - Telemarketing (CBEM) SA v. Compagnie luxembourgeoise de télédiffusion SA and Information publicité Benelux SA, [1985] ECR, p. 3261. (2) Case C-202/88, France v. Commission, [1991] I, p. 1223, paragraph 51, p. 1271. (3) Telecom Italia and its subsidiary Telecom Italia Mobile operate the fixed network and mobile services. On the other hand, Omnitel Pronto Italia can only establish radio links if it can show that Telecom Italia cannot provide it with the leased lines requested within a reasonable time. (1) See, for example, judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 November 1992, Joined Cases C-271/90, C-281/90 and C-289/90, The Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of Belgium and the Italian Republic v. Commission, [1992] ECR I, p. 5833, paragraph 36. (2) The specifications provide for a reduction of 50 % of the public tariff for lines leased by SIP to the second operator. Despite this reduction, the cost of leased lines for the second GSM operator in Italy remains three times higher than that applied by BT in the United Kingdom to cellular telephony operators. (3) As the Commission has already emphasized in its letter of 29 June 1993, 'since the public undertaking holds a monopoly in the supply of mobile radiotelephony services, it has no great interest in introducing an alternative, the GSM service, quickly`. (4) See, for example, Case C-41/90, Hoefner v. Macrotron [1991] ECR I, p. 1979 as well as the judgments of 18 June 1991, Case C-260/89, Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis v. EPT, [1991] ECR I, p. 2925, and of 5 October 1994, Case C-323/93, Société civile agricole d'insémination de la Crespelle v. Coopérative d'élevage et d'insémination artificielle du département de la Mayenne [1994] ECR I, p. 5077. (1) (2) (3) (4) (1) (2) (3) (1) (1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3) (4)