Estonia / Tallinn Administrative Court / Case No. 3-22-2556, CJEU Case C-354/24

Elisa Eestiu v Cybersecurity Council of the Security Committee of the Republic of Estonia and Office of Consumer Protection and Technical Supervision
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Decision date
15/05/2024
  • Estonia / Tallinn Administrative Court / Case No. 3-22-2556, CJEU Case C-354/24

    Key facts of the case: 

    On 23 March 2022, Elisa Eesti AS submitted to the Consumer Protection and Technical Supervision Board (TTJA) an application for a usage permit for existing Huawei 2G-4G hardware and software in the Elisa communication network and for Huawei 5G hardware and software planned to be introduced in the Elisa communication network from 1 June 2022. The parent company of Elisa is a company from another EU Member State, Elisa Oyj.

    The Cyber Security Council of the Security Commission of the Government of the Republic (KJN) found in its decision no. 1 on 27 October2022 that all the hardware and software mentioned in the applicant's application pose a threat to national security and proposed to TTJA to issue a license for 5G functionality until 31 December 2025 and for 2G to 4G functionality until 31 December2029. The legal basis is the ESS Article 874 subsection 2.

    On 25 November2022, TTJA forwarded decision no. 1-7/22-436 to Elisa Eesti AS and issued a usage permit for 5G functionality until 31 December 2025 and for 2G to 4G functionality until 31 December 2029. According to the resolution of the decision, the TTJA found that all the hardware and software mentioned in the application for the use permit registered by Elisa Eesti AS on 24 March 2022 threatens the security of the state. In its decision, the TTJA referred to the grounds of decision No. 1 of the KJN of 27 October 2022.

    On 01 December 2022, Elisa Eesti AS filed a complaint with the Tallinn Administrative Court regarding the partial annulment of decision No. 1 of 27 October 2022 of KJN and decision No. 1-7/22-436 of TTJA of 25 November 2022 and the requirements to oblige the respondents.

    Elisa Eesti AS claims that the contested decisions are illegal, have errors of judgment, contradict the current law and disproportionately infringe the fundamental rights of the applicant. 

    Key legal question raised by the Court: 

    The Court asked six questions, the last is connected to the Charter. The questions contains the legal problem and is formulated as follows: ‘Where the use of hardware or software that was already present and actively used in the communications network prior to the introduction of the authorization requirement is authorised for a period shorter than the usefullife of that hardware or software and the hardware or software in question was lawfully acquired, does that constitute a deprivation of property for the purposes of the second sentence of Article 17 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?’

    Outcome of the case: 

    The administrative court stayed the proceedings until the ruling of the CJEU. 

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    5.12. The administrative act of the TTJA leads to the de facto expropriation of Huawei 4G hardware and software (contrary to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter of Fundamental Rights)), unequal treatment of the applicant compared to telecommunications companies that do not have Huawei hardware and software in their communications network (contrary to Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights) and the applicant's legitimate expectation intense friction.

    ...

    6.13. The requirement for a license does not violate the basic right of equality of the communication company in the sense of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as the requirement applies equally to everyone.

    ...

    10. The subject matter of the dispute between the parties to the proceedings is the administrative act under dispute in accordance with European Union law, including Directive 2015/1535 Art. 5 Ig. 1, Electronic Communications Code Art. 12 Ig. 1, ELTL Art. 34 and 36 and the Charter of Fundamental Rights Art. 17 paragraph 1 second sentence. 

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    5.12. TTJA haldusakt toob kaasa Huawei 4G riist- ja tarkvara faktilise sundvõõrandamise (vastuolu Euroopa Liidu põhiõiguste hartaga (põhiõiguste harta)), kaebaja ebavõrdse kohtlemise võrreldes sideettevõtjatega, kelle sidevõrgus ei ole Huawei riist- ja tarkvara (vastuolus põhiõiguste harta artikliga 20) ning kaebaja õiguspärase ootuse intensiivse riive. 

    ...

    6.13. Kasutusloa nõue ei riiva sideettevõtja võrdsuspõhiõigust põhiõiguste harta art 20 mõttes, kuivõrd nõue kehtib võrdselt kõigi suhtes. 

    ...

    10.Menetlusosalistevahelonvaidlusaluseksküsimuseks, kasvaidlusalusedhaldusaktidonmh kooskõlas Euroopa Liidu õigusega, sh direktiivi 2015/1535 art 5 Ig-ga 1, elektroonilise side seadustiku art 12 Ig-ga 1, ELTL art-tega 34 ja 36 ning põhiõiguste harta art 17 lg 1 teise lausega.