Article 5
This decision shall be enforceable pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 256 of the EC Treaty. Done at Brussels, 21 May 2003. For the Commission Mario Monti Member of the Commission (1) OJ 13, 21.2.1962, p. 204/62. (2) OJ L 148, 15.6.1999, p. 5. (3) OJ L 354, 30.12.1998, p. 18. (4) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 7. (5) Telekommunikationsgesetz (TKG), 25 July 1996, publication reference BGBl. I, p. 1120. (6) Case COMP/M.1795 - Vodafone Airtouch/Mannesmann (OJ L 141, 19.5.2000, p. 19). (7) Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on unbundled access to the local loop (OJ L 336, 30.12.2000, p. 4, recital 3). (8) Following a complaint lodged by Mannesmann Arcor under section 33(2)(2) of the Act, which came after unsuccessful negotiations with DT between November 1996 and March 1997. (9) Ministry Decision 223a of 28 May 1997. (10) Since 1 January 2001, when Regulation (EC) No 2887/2000 entered into force, local loop unbundling has also been mandatory under Community law. (11) An application for an interim injunction was dismissed on 18 August 1997 by the Administrative Court of Cologne, and that dismissal was upheld on 29 September 1997 by the Higher Administrative Court of Münster. (12) Section 24(1) of the Act. (13) Sections 25(1) and 24 of the Act. (14) Section 24 of the Act. (15) Section 29(1) of the Act. (16) Section 28(1) and (2) of the Act. (17) Regulatory authority division (Beschlusskammer) 4, file reference BK 4a 1130/E23.12.97; in DT's application, costs were calculated using DT's traditional cost accounting system. (18) "CuDa 2Dr", a copper pair circuit. Many higher-performance local loops also exist. (19) There is a "new connection" where a local loop access product is ordered without discontinuing a DT product at the same time, or where the technical set-up or use of the local loop is changed, or where there is no longer any serviceable connection to the end-user for the desired product variant (DT local loop contract, version current at 18 November 2002, Annex 1, definitions). The basic charge is due where no additional work is needed on DT's cable distribution frame or at the customer's premises (such a connection is hereinafter referred to as a "straightforward" new connection); otherwise higher one-off charges are payable. (20) There is a "takeover" of an existing connection where a local loop access product is ordered and an existing DT product is discontinued at the same time, and there is no change in the technical set-up or use of the local loop (DT local loop contract, version current at 18 November 2002, Annex 1, definitions). The basic charge is due where no additional work is needed on DT's cable distribution frame or at the customer's premises (such a connection is hereinafter referred to as a "straightforward" takeover); otherwise higher one-off charges are payable. (21) DT withdrew its application on 17 July 1998, and submitted it afresh on 21 September 1998, seeking the same charges, but providing more detailed cost accounting. (22) Ministry press release of 27 November 1998 (Annex 7 to complaint in Case COMP/C-1/37.451); regulatory authority press release of 27 November 1998 (Annex 7A to complaint in Case COMP/C-1/37.451). (23) File reference L 3890/98. (24) Division 4, file reference BK 4e-98-024/E 21.09.98. (25) There is a description of this service in Annex 4 to the local loop charges application of 19 January 2001, p. 6 (Annex ZZ to DT's reply of 24 September 2001 to the request for information of 29 August 2001). (26) Grounds of application set out in Annex 2 to the local loop charges application of 19 January 2001, p. 3 (see footnote 25). (27) Division 4, file reference BK 4a-01/001/E 19.1.2001. (28) It authorised monthly charges for 13 different types of line, the highest being EUR 65,70. (29) It authorised one-off charges for more than 80 different types of case, the highest being over EUR 400. (30) Wissenschaftliches Institut für Kommunikationsdienste, Bad Honnef, Germany. (31) Using the LRIC (long-run incremental cost) method. (32) Division 4, file reference BK 4a-02/004/E 31.1.2002. (33) It authorised access provision charges for more than 70 different types of case, and discontinuance charges for more than 30; some of these were substantially higher than the amounts cited here. (34) Division 4, file reference BK 4a-03-010/E, 19.2.2003. (35) DT's reply of 23 July 2001 to the request for information of 22 June 2001 and DT's reply of 4 February 2002 to the request for information of 17 January 2002 in Case COMP/C-1/37.451; DT's letters of 17 January 2003 and 22 January 2003: primary rate access connections are not included, and nor are "other" connections, because they are numerically insignificant, or because their prices cannot be apportioned with sufficient accuracy. (36) DT's reply of 23 July 2001 to the request for information of 22 June 2001 and DT's reply of 4 February 2002 to the request for information of 17 January 2002 in Case COMP/C-1/37.451; DT's letters of 17 January 2003 and 22 January 2003. (37) DT's current retail tariffs are published on the Internet at www.telekom.de. See also regulatory authority, "Anhang 2 zur Mitteilung 68/1999", publication reference Amtsblatt (RegTP) No 3/1999, p. 540. (38) Sections 27(1)2 and 25(1) of the Act; Sections 4 and 5 of the telecommunications charges order (Telekommunikations-Entgeltregulierungsverordnung (TEntgV, hereinafter "the order"), 1 October 1996, publication reference BGBl. I, p. 1492). (39) Section 1(1) of the order. (40) Section 1(2) of the order. (41) Section 4(1) of the order. (42) Section 4(2) of the order. (43) Section 4(2) and (3) of the order. (44) Ministry decision of 17 December 1997, "Mitteilung 202/1997", publication reference Amtsblatt (BMPT) 34/97, p. 1891. (45) Regulatory authority decision of 23 December 1999, Division 2, file reference BK 2c 99/050. (46) The average price index incorporates the imposed aggregate price movement in each basket from one price cap period to the next. In 1997 it was set at a reference value of 100, and then adjusted for each of the two price cap periods, taking account of general price changes and the share of turnover accounted for by each service in the basket in each price cap period. (47) The price cap index shows the required aggregate price reduction per price cap period, taking account of the level of prices after the reductions required in the preceding price cap period. (48) Section 27(2), second sentence, of the act, and section 5(3) of the order. (49) Section 27(3) of the act. (50) Since the beginning of 1998 the regulatory authority has authorised seven price reductions within the price cap system: on 30 January 1998, on 11 December 1998, on 16 March 1999, on 16 April 1999, on 21 January, on 16 February 2000, and on 13 March 2002. (51) Regulatory authority's reply of 3 April 2002 to the request for information of 23 March 2002. (52) Regulatory authority's reply of 3 April 2002 to the request for information of 23 March 2002. (53) Regulatory authority's reply of 3 April 2002 to the request for information of 23 March 2002. (54) DT's observations on the complaint in Case COMP/C-1/37.451, 14 May 1999, p. 17; DT's reply of 24 September 2001 to the request for information of 28 August 2001 in Case COMP/C-1/37.451, p. 5. (55) For precise descriptions of these ISDN variants see DT's letter of 17 January 2003 and Annex DT St 29. (56) A regulatory authority decision of 28 February 2001 extended that authorisation to 31 March 2002. (57) Decision of 21 December 2001, file reference BK2c 01/009, publication reference Amtsblatt (RegTP) 2/2002, 6.2.2002, p. 75. (58) http://www.regtp.de/reg_tele/start/ fs_05.html. (59) "Mitteilung 580/2001", publication reference Amtsblatt (RegTP) 20/2001, 17.10.2001, p. 3087. (60) X factors: basket A, - 1 %; basket B, 5 %; basket C, 2 %; and basket D, 1 %. The reference values for these price adjustment guidelines are the average price index and the price cap index at the end of the second price cap period. (61) Decision of 21 December 2001 (see footnote 57), pp. 17 and 19. (62) German Statistical Office (Statistisches Bundesamt), price index for cost of living for a private household on 30 June 2001. (63) On the assumption that the inflation rate remains unchanged in 2002 to 2004. In its decision of 21 December 2001 (see footnote 57), the regulatory authority forecasts that over the three years DT will have scope to increase charges for all lines by an average of 10 %, and for analogue lines by 14 %. (64) DT press release, 15 January 2002. (65) Division 2, file reference BK2a 02/001. (66) Division 2, file reference BK2a 02/028; regulatory authority press release, 20 December 2002. (67) Under section 30 of the Act. (68) Written information from DT, 5 March 2002; all prices are for the T-DSL upgrade only, and come on top of the T-Net or T-ISDN charges, see recitals 40 and 41. (69) Division 3, file reference BK3b-00/032, decision of 30 March 2001, p. 31. (The decision found that only the monthly charge for T-DSL/T-Net covered its cost.) (70) "Resale" was ordered by Division 3, file reference BK 3a-00/025; "line-sharing" was likewise ordered by Division 3, file reference BK 3c-00/029. (71) DT press release, 15 January 2002 (the prices quoted are for T-DSL only, not including the T-Net or T-ISDN line). (72) T-DSL is also offered via the other T-ISDN variants, but this happens so rarely that the prices can be ignored in this proceeding; see DT's letter of 31 January 2003. (73) Division 3, file reference BK3b-01/039, regulatory authority press release, 22 January 2002. (74) Court of Justice in Case 41/83 Italy v Commission [1985] ECR 873, paragraphs 17 to 20. (75) DT's observations on the Statement of Objections, 29 July 2002, pp. 18 ff.; DT's letter of 25 October 2002, pp. 2 ff. (76) DT's observations on the Statement of Objections, 29 July 2002, pp. 20 ff. (77) DT's observations on the Statement of Objections, 29 July 2002, pp. 32 ff. (78) Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-359/95 and C-379/95 P Commission and France v Ladbroke Racing [1997] ECR I-6225, paragraph 34, with further references; Court of First Instance in Case T-228/97 Irish Sugar v Commission [1999] ECR II-296, paragraph 130; Court of First Instance in Case T-513/93 Consiglio Nazionale degli Spedizionieri Doganali [2000] II-1807, paragraphs 59 et seq. (79) OJ C 265, 22.8.1998, p. 2, paragraph 22. (80) Ibid., paragraph 60, which refers to the Commission decision of 15 December 1982, AROW/BNIC (OJ L 379, 31.12.1982, p. 19). (81) OJ C 165, 11.7.2002, p. 6, paragraph 65. (82) Commission decision in Telia/Telenor, OJ L 40, 9.2.2001, p. 1, recital 79 et seq.; Commission decision in Cégétel + 4, OJ L 218, 18.8.1999, p. 14, recital 22; Commission guidelines (see footnote 81), paragraph 64. (83) Commission Guidelines (see footnote 81), paragraph 65. (84) OJ L 199, 26.7.1997, p. 32 and OJ L 268 3.10.1998, p. 37. (85) These new services were only introduced on 25 April 2003 (press release by RegTP of 21 February 2003) after infringement proceedings brought by the Commission against Germany. (86) Eighth report from the Commission on the implementation of the telecommunications regulatory package (COM(2002) 695 final, 3.12.2001), Annex 1, p. 55. (87) Commission guidelines (see footnote 81), with further references. (88) OJ L 192, 24.7.1990, p. 10. (89) OJ L 74, 22.3.1996, p. 13, recital 20. (90) OJ C 272, 23.9.2000, p. 55, (91) The regulatory authority has accepted that DSL broadband access services form a separate market: decision of 30 March 2001, division 3, file reference BK 3b-00/032, p. 26. (92) The market in retail access to broadband services does not include high-speed Internet-access services, which are provided not by DT itself but by its subsidiary T-Online. (93) Eighth report from the Commission (see footnote 86), Annex 1, fig. 63, and report on Germany, p. 30. (94) Regulatory authority annual report for 2001, p. 15. (95) DT proposed selling all of its cable network in six German cable regions to Liberty Media, but that transaction was prohibited by the Federal Cartels Office (Bundeskartellamt) on 25 February 2002. On 29 January 2003 DT announced the sale of the remainder of the cable network to a consortium grouped around the investment bank Goldman Sachs; but this does not fundamentally change the situation, as it is still impossible to see when and in what way the cable network may be put to use in interactive communications services. (96) Regulatory authority annual report for 2001, p. 16. (97) Regulatory authority annual report for 2002, p. 18; see also eighth report (footnote 86), p. 28; of DT's total 39 million local loops, only 855000 lines were unbundled until the end of 2002. (98) Eighth report (see footnote 86), p. 32. (99) This also explains the [...] % share of the market in Internet access services to end-users in Germany held by T-Online, a wholly owned subsidiary of DT. (100) Eighth report (footnote 86), p. 32. (101) Regulatory authority annual report for 2001, p. 18. (102) DT's observations on the Statement of Objections, 29 July 2002, p. 82. (103) Annex DT St 5 (Lexecon opinion), point 33 et seq. (104) Decision 88/518/EEC (Napier Brown - British Sugar) (OJ L 284, 19.10.1988, p. 41), recital 66. (105) Access notice (see footnote 79), paragraphs 118 and 119. (106) ONP Committee document ONPCOM 01-17, 25.6.2001. (107) This is currently done in Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Finland (two different monthly wholesale fees, for analogue+ISDN and ADSL), and in Sweden and Norway (three different monthly wholesale fees, for analogue, ISDN and ADSL); see ONP Committee working paper ONPCOM 01-27 REV2, 18.2.2002. (108) DT's observations on the Statement of Objections, 29 July 2002, p. 74 et seq., and especially Annex DT St 5 (Lexecon opinion), points 19 et seq. (109) DT's observations on the Statement of Objections, 29 July 2002, p. 78 et seq. (110) DT's observations on the Statement of Objections, 29 July 2002, p. 80 et seq. (111) OJ L 41, 12.2.1997, p. 8, point 24. (112) OJ L 133, 24.5.1997, p. 19, point 30. (113) OJ L 234, 26.8.1997, p. 7, point 16. (114) OJ L 243, 5.9.1997, p. 48, point 13. (115) OJ L 245, 9.9.1997, p. 6, point 41. (116) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998, p. 24. (117) OJ L 192, 24.7.1990, p. 1. (118) OJ L 295, 29.10.1997, p. 23. (119) See footnote 84. (120) Decision of 21 December 2001, file reference BK2c 01/009; publication reference Amtsblatt (RegTP) 2/2002, 6.2.2002, p. 14. (121) DT's letter of 13 November 2002. (122) DT's observations on the Statement of Objections, 29 July 2002, p. 78. (123) Even if we were to follow the modelling in Annex 10 to DT's observations of 29 July 2002 on the Statement of Objections, which according to DT increases the average retail price by EUR 1 per connection, there would currently still be a margin squeeze; see recital 160, Table 12. (124) Decision of 21 December 2001, file reference BK2c 01/009, publication reference Amtsblatt (RegTP) 2/2001, 6.2.2002, p. 15. (125) DT's observations on the Statement of Objections, 29 July 2002, p. 80. (126) Section 2(2) (2) and (3) of the Act. (127) DT's observations on the complaint in Case COMP/C-1/37.451, 14 May 1999, p. 20; DT's observations on the complaint in Case COMP/C-1/37.579, 10 September 1999, p. 12. (128) See footnote 148. (129) Complaint in Case COMP/C-1/37.451, p. 15; complaint in Case COMP/C-1/37.578, p. 45; complaint in Case COMP/C-1/37.579, p. 14. (130) Special opinion (Sondergutachten) of the German Monopolies Commission, 2001, pp. 40 and 41. (131) Letters from Arcor, 4 July 2001, p. 5, and 4 March 2002, p. 2, in Case COMP/C-1/37.451; letter from the other 14 complainants, 12 September 2002, p. 23; letter from COLT Telecom GmbH, 15 October 2002. (132) See also footnote 72; the resulting average value for T-DSL/T-ISDN was EUR 32,65 at 31 December 2002; using the same method of calculation, the average value came to EUR 29,66 at 31 December 2001, EUR 27,45 at 31 December 2000 and EUR 44,30 at 31 December 1999; the T-DSL services provided over other ISDN variants are so few in number that their prices can be left out of this calculation, cf. DT's letter of 31 January 2003. (133) DT's letter of 6 February 2003. (134) ([...] x EUR 22,22) + ([...] x EUR 44,45) / 100 = EUR [...]. (135) At present around [...] % of all DT's end-user connections are T-DSL (3,1 million lines compared with [...] million analogue and ISDN lines); see recitals 27 and 28. (136) DT's letter of 14 March 2003 and of 18 March 2003; a shorter period, f. e. 40 months, as proposed in the complaint in Case COMP/C-1/37.579, p. 11, or 20 months, as proposed in the Case COMP/C-1/37.451, p. 17, would be a less favourable basis for calculation, as the one-off retail charges have always been and still are lower than the one-off wholesale charges. (137) For more details on developments in these charges since 1998, see paragraphs 18 seq. above. (138) See footnote 25. (139) In [...] % of all cases the existing line is taken over without customer transfer; in [...] % of cases a new connection is installed without customer transfer; cf. complainants' letter of 12 September 2002 in Cases COMP/C-1/37.578 and 37.579, p. 21, footnotes 1 and 2; complainants' letter of 18 September 2002 in Case COMP/C-1/37.451, p. 23, footnotes 58 and 59; the same applies for the discontinuance with customer transfer in relation the discontinuance without customer transfer; see DT's letter of 18 March 2003. (140) Annex U to DT's reply of 24 September 2001 to the request for information of 29 August 2001 in Case COMP/C-1/37.451: sum of individual costs [...] per year (= [...] per month). (141) Annex W to DT's reply of 24 September 2001 to the request for information of 29 August 2001 in Case COMP/C-1/37.451: sum of individual costs [...] per year (= [...] per month). (142) DT's reply of 20 November 2001 to the request for information of 30 October 2001 in Case COMP/C-1/37.451, pp. 3 and 4: [...]. (143) Annex to DT's reply of 20 November 2001 to the request for information of 30 October 2001 in Case COMP/C-1/37.451, Table TelAs: total cost [...] - network infrastructure cost [...] = [...]. (144) DT's letter of 17 January 2003, p. 5 (for exact breakdown, see table 11). (145) DT's reply of 20 November 2001 to the request for information of 30 October 2001 in Case COMP/C-1/37.451, p. 3: total cost [...] - network infrastructure cost [...] = [...]. (146) From 1 May 2002: average monthly charge EUR 15,17 + pro rata one-off charge [...] = [...] - [...] wholesale charge = EUR [...] positive spread; from 1 July 2002: average monthly charge EUR 15,17 + pro rata one-off charge [...] = [...] - [...] wholesale charge = EUR [...] positive spread; from 1 January 2003: average monthly charge EUR 15,17 + pro rata one-off charge [...] = [...] - [...] wholesale charge = EUR [...] positive spread; from 1 February 2003: average monthly charge EUR 15,41 + pro rata one-off charge [...] = [...] - [...] wholesale charge = EUR [...] positive spread; from 1 May 2003: average monthly charge EUR 15,41 + pro rata one-off charge [...] = [...] - [...] wholesale charge = EUR [...] positive spread. (147) DT's observations on the Statement of Objections in Cases COMP/C-1/37.451, 37.578 and 37.579, 29 July 2002, p. 92. (148) Cf. the following hypothetical calculation based on the charges applicable up to 30 April 2002: Retail T-DSL/T-ISDN: EUR 28,56/month + EUR [...] (weighted one-off charges) = EUR [...] Wholesale ULL: EUR 12,48/month + EUR [...] (weighted one-off charges) = EUR [...] Spread between retail and wholesale charges = EUR + [...] Product-specific costs for retail T-DSL/T-ISDN services = EUR - [...] Margin squeeze = EUR [...] Under this hypothetical calculation, the margin squeeze ceased to exist only after the new retail charges came into effect on 1 May 2002. (149) In the first decision of 30 January 1998 the regulatory authority has approved all of DT's requested tariff changes except the tariffs "City Plus 2" and "City Plus 3" which did not fall under the price cap regime. In the second decision of 11 December 1998 the regulatory authority approved all of DT's requested tariff changes. In the third decision of 16 March 1999 the regulatory authority approved all of DT's requested tariff changes except the tariff for local calls with a time measure length of 60 seconds on working days, Saturdays, Sundays and official holidays and from 24 December until 1 January in the time between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. because this tariff contained obviously unjustified discounts. In its fourth decision of 16 April 1999 the regulatory authority approved all of DT's requested tariff changes except those for connection to the Faeroe Islands, Greece, San Marino, Turkey, Portugal and Gibraltar. In the fifth decision of 21 January 2000 and in the sixth decision of 16 February 2000 the regulatory authority approved all of DT's requested tariff changes. (150) Regulatory authority decision of 23 December 1999, p. 13 (see footnote 45). (151) See footnote 149. (152) DT concedes that it could have increased the monthly access charge per residential customer during the first price cap period by EUR [...] (DT's observations on the Statement of Objections, 29 July 2002, p. 66). (153) Local level: call charge EUR 0,0345/min. compared with EUR 0,0065/min. for local interconnection (peak times) = 530 % and EUR 0,0172/min. compared with EUR 0,0044/min. (off-peak) = 390 % /national level: call charge EUR 0,106/min. compared with EUR 0,0186/min. double transit interconnection (peak times) = 570 % and EUR 0,0267/min. compared with EUR 0,0122/min. (off-peak) = 220 % (all prices net, interconnection charges laid down by the regulatory authority decision of October 2001, see regulatory authority press release of 15 October 2001). (154) DT's observations on the Statement of Objections, 29 July 2002, p. 38 et seq. (155) Under Section 27(2), second sentence, of the Act. (156) DT's reply of 14 May 1999 to the complaint in Case COMP/C-1/37.451, p. 21; DT's reply of 16 September 1999 to the complaint in Case COMP/C-1/37.578, p. 20. (157) DT's reply of 23 July 2001 to the request for information of 22 June 2001 in Case COMP/C-1/37.451. (158) DT's reply of 14 May 1999 to the complaint in Case COMP/C-1/37.451, p. 21; DT's reply of 24 September 2001 to the request for information of 29 August 2001 in Case COMP/C-1/37.451, p. 14. (159) See table 12. (160) DT's observations on the Statement of Objections, 29 July 2002, p. 41. (161) See also footnote 69; the regulatory authority determined in its decision of 30 March 2001: "The tariffs for T-DSL connections include discounts below the costs of an effective service provision." (p. 31) and "The determined discounts from the costs of an effective service provision are resulting in an objectively unjustified restriction of the competitive chances of the concurrents." (S. 44). (162) See table 12; in this respect the decision of the regulatory authority of 25 January 2002 to close the reopened proceeding with regard to T-DSL charges (decision of 18 December 2001) contains now new calculations about the degree of cost covering. (163) DT's observations on the Statement of Objections, 29 July 2002, pp. 83 ff.; DT's letter of 25 October 2002, p. 27 et seq. (164) Court of Justice in Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche [1979] ECR 461, paragraph 91. (165) Court of First Instance in Case T-83/91 Tetra Pak II [1994] ECR II-755, paragraph 114. (166) Court of Justice in Case C-62/86 AKZO [1991] ECR I-3359, paragraph 70. (167) Ibid., paragraphs 71 et seq. (168) Court of Justice in Hoffmann-La Roche (see footnote 164), paragraph 89; Court of First Instance in Tetra Pak II (see footnote 165), paragraph 221, with further references. (169) Commission Decision in Napier Brown - British Sugar, see footnote 104. (170) Regulatory authority annual report for 2002, p. 18. (171) Regulatory authority annual report for 2002, p. 19. (172) Complainants' letter of 12 September 2002 in Cases COMP/C-1/37.578 and COMP/C-1/37.579, pp. 23 and 24. (173) See footnote 170. (174) DT's letter of 25 October 2002, pp. 31 and 32. (175) Access notice (see footnote 79), paragraphs 144 to 148. (176) DT's observations on the Statement of Objections, 29 July 2002, p. 119 et seq. (177) Regulated in Germany by section 17 et seq. of the Act and by the Telecommunications universal service order (Telekommunikations-Universaldienstleistungsverordnung (TUDLV)). (178) OJ L 108, 26.4.2002, p. 51. (179) Communication from the Commission: "Services of general interest in Europe", 20 September 2000, OJ C 17, 19.1.2001, p. 4. (180) Court of Justice in Case 127/73 BRT v SABAM [1974] ECR 313, paragraph 20. (181) See footnote 180, paragraph 22 et seq.; most recently Case C-242/95 GT-Link v DSB [1997] ECR I-4449, paragraph 50. (182) DT's observations on the Statement of Objections, 29 July 2002, p. 120, with references to similar regulations for the postal sector. (183) Unlike in the postal sector, where Deutsche Post AG has an exclusive licence entrusting it with handling letters in the reserved sector. (184) See footnote 178. (185) DT's observations on the Statement of Objections, 29 July 2002, p. 120. (186) Section 24(1), first sentence, of the Act. (187) Under Section 24(2)(3) of the Act; cf. DT's observations on the Statement of Objections, 29 July 2002, p. 120. (188) Section 17(1) first sentence, and section 24(1), first sentence, of the Act. (189) Section 2(1) of the Telecommunications universal service order. (190) Schütz in Beck'scher TKG-Kommentar, § 2 TUDLV, Anhang zu § 17, Rn. 1. (191) Court of Justice in Case C-320/91 Corbeau [1993] ECR I-2533, paragraph 17. (192) Ibid., paragraph 18. (193) DT's observations on the Statement of Objections, 29 July 2002, p. 120 and Annex DT St. 12. (194) See footnote 104. (195) OJ C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 3, point 1(A). (196) http://www.telekom3.de/de-p/konz/ 2-st/4-t-/star/ 030310-t-com-kurzprofil-ar.html. (197) See footnote 195, point 1(B).