FantasticSearch

(23) Where disputes concerning access to the information on the physical infrastructures with a view to deploying high-speed electronic communications networks arise, the dispute settlement body should be able to resolve such disputes by means of a binding decision. In any case, decisions of such body should be without prejudice to the possibility of any party to refer the case to a court.

(24) The coordination of civil works concerning physical infrastructures may ensure significant savings and minimise inconvenience to the area affected by the deployment of new electronic communications networks. For that reason, regulatory constraints preventing as a general rule the negotiation among network operators with a view to coordinating such works in order to deploy also high-speed electronic communications networks should be prohibited. In the case of civil works not financed by public means, this Directive should be without prejudice for the stakeholders to conclude civil works coordination agreements according to their own investment and business plans and their preferred timing.

(25) Civil works fully or partially financed by public means should aim to maximise the positive collective outcome, by exploiting the positive externalities of those works across sectors and ensuring equal opportunities to share the available and planned physical infrastructure in view of deploying electronic communications networks. While the main purpose of the civil works financed by public means should not be adversely affected, timely and reasonable requests to coordinate deployment of elements of high-speed electronic communications networks, ensuring for example the coverage of any additional costs, including those caused by delays, and the minimisation of changes to the original plans, should be met by the network operator carrying out directly or indirectly, for example through a sub-contractor, the civil works concerned under proportionate, non-discriminatory and transparent terms. Without prejudice to applicable State aid rules, Member States should be able to provide rules on apportioning the costs associated with the coordinated deployment. Specific settlement procedures should be available to ensure the rapid resolution of disputes concerning the negotiation of those coordination agreements under proportionate, fair and non-discriminatory terms. Such provisions should be without prejudice to the right of the Member States to reserve capacity for electronic communications networks even in the absence of specific requests, with a view to meeting future demand for physical infrastructures to maximise the value of civil works, or to adopt measures entailing similar rights to coordinate civil works for operators of other types of networks, such as gas or electricity.

(26) A number of different permits concerning the deployment of electronic communications networks or new network elements may be necessary, including building, town planning, environmental and other permits, in order to protect national and Union general interests. The number of permits required for the deployment of different types of electronic communications networks and the local character of the deployment may entail the application of a variety of procedures and conditions. While preserving the right of each competent authority to be involved and maintain its decision making prerogatives in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, all relevant information on the procedures and general conditions applicable to civil works should be available via the single information point. This could reduce complexity and increase efficiency and transparency, in particular for new entrants or smaller operators not active in that area. Moreover, Member States should be able to provide for the right of undertakings providing or authorised to provide public communications networks to submit their permit request via a single contact point.

(27) To ensure that permit granting procedures do not act as barriers to investment, and that they do not have an adverse effect on the internal market, Member States should ensure that a decision on whether or not to grant permit requests concerning the deployment of electronic communications networks or new network elements should in any case be made available at the latest within four months, without prejudice to other specific deadlines or obligations laid down for the proper conduct of the procedure which are applicable to the permit granting procedure in accordance with national or Union law. Such decision may be tacit or explicit according to the applicable legal provisions. Where appropriate, Member States should provide for the right for providers that suffer damage due to the delay of a competent authority to grant permits within the applicable deadlines to receive compensation.

(28) In order to ensure that such permits granting procedures are completed within reasonable deadlines, Member States could consider establishing several safeguards, such as tacit approval, or take measures to simplify granting procedures by, inter alia, reducing the number of permits needed to deploy electronic communications networks or by exempting certain categories of small or standardised civil works from permit granting. Authorities, at national, regional or local level, should justify any refusal to grant such permits within their competence, on the basis of objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria and conditions. That should be without prejudice to any measure adopted by the Member States exempting certain elements of electronic communications networks, whether passive or active, from permit granting.

(29) The achievement of the Digital Agenda targets requires that the infrastructure roll-out be brought close to the end-user's location, while fully respecting the principle of proportionality as regards any limitation on to the right to property in view of the general interest pursued. The existence of high-speed electronic communications networks up to the end-user should be facilitated while ensuring at the same time technological neutrality, in particular by high-speed-ready in-building physical infrastructure. Given that providing for mini-ducts during the construction of a building has only a limited incremental cost while retrofitting buildings with high-speed infrastructure may represent a significant part of the cost of high-speed network deployment, all new buildings or buildings subject to major renovation should be equipped with physical infrastructure, allowing the connection of end-users with high-speed networks. In order to roll out high-speed electronic communications networks, new multi-dwelling buildings and multi-dwelling buildings subject to major renovation should be equipped with an access point, by which the provider may access the in-building infrastructure. Moreover, building developers should foresee that empty ducts are provided from every dwelling to the access point, located in or outside the multi-dwelling building. There may be cases such as new single dwellings or categories of major renovation works in isolated areas where the prospect of high-speed connection is considered, on objective grounds, too remote to justify equipping a building with high-speed-ready in-building physical infrastructure or an access point or where so equipping the building would be disproportionate for other economic, urban heritage conservation or environmental reasons, such as for specific categories of monuments.

(30) In order to help prospective buyers and tenants identify buildings that are equipped with high-speed-ready in-building physical infrastructure and that therefore have considerable cost-saving potential, and in order to promote the high-speed readiness of buildings, Member States should be able to develop a voluntary ‘broadband-ready’ label for buildings equipped with such infrastructure and an access point in accordance with this Directive.

(31) When public communications network providers deploy high-speed electronic communications networks in a specific area, there are significant economies of scale if they can terminate their network to the building access point, irrespective of whether a subscriber has expressed explicit interest for the service at that moment in time, but provided that the impact on private property is minimised, by using existing physical infrastructure and restoring the affected area. Once the network is terminated at the access point, the connection of an additional customer is possible at a significantly lower cost, in particular by means of access to a high-speed-ready vertical segment inside the building, where it already exists. That objective is equally fulfilled when the building itself is already equipped with a high-speed electronic communications network to which access is provided to any public communications network provider who has an active subscriber in the building on transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory terms and conditions. That may in particular be the case in Member States which have taken measures on the basis of Article 12 of Directive 2002/21/EC.

(32) New buildings should be equipped with high-speed-ready in-building infrastructure and, in the case of multi-dwelling buildings, with an access point. Member States should have a degree of flexibility to achieve this aim. In that respect, this Directive does not seek to harmonise rules on related costs, including on the recovery of costs of equipping buildings with high-speed-ready in-building physical infrastructure and an access point.

(33) In view of the social benefits stemming from digital inclusion and taking into account the economics of deployment of high-speed electronic communications networks, where there is neither existing passive or active high-speed-ready infrastructure serving end-users' premises nor alternatives to providing high-speed electronic communications networks to a subscriber, any public communications network provider should have the right to terminate its network to a private premise at its own costs, provided that the impact on private property is minimised, for example, if possible, by reusing the existing physical infrastructure available in the building or ensuring full restoration of the affected areas.

(34) In line with the principle of subsidiarity, this Directive should be without prejudice to the possibility of Member States to allocate the regulatory tasks provided for to the authorities best suited to fulfil them in accordance with the domestic constitutional system of attribution of competences and powers and with the requirements set forth in this Directive.

(35) The designated national dispute settlement body should ensure impartiality and independence vis-à-vis the parties involved and should have the appropriate competences and resources.

(36) Appropriate, effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties should be provided for by Member States in the event of lack of compliance with the national measures adopted pursuant to this Directive.