The court contradicted and found that when a lessor has a contractual relocation clause, it has the right to invoke its conditions and not to resort to the legal procedure provided for by the Old Code. Paragraph 20 only had to restore the landowner to an additional relocation mechanism and, in accordance with Article 27, paragraph 2, of the old code, the rights of the old code are not affected by the rights or commitments provided for in the contractual agreement. In this regard, the operator has breached the terms of the contractual agreement and therefore cannot be characterized as lawful; The argument that the old code somehow provides comprehensive protection against treaty violations was categorically rejected by the court. What are the legal avenues? A legal or necessary route gives the supplier the right to access the land and install its equipment without the consent of the landowner. Most suppliers will try to negotiate a voluntary route, but if an agreement is not reached, suppliers can often continue to install under the Power Operating License code and impose mandatory purchase or vesting orders. The consultation indicates that operators have informed the government that a large number of landlords (particularly in relation to apartment buildings) are not responding to access requests. The result is that operators, because they are prevented from providing services, have completely removed properties from their construction plans. This is due to the additional administrative burden imposed on non-reactive owners, which is not cost-effective in implementing new infrastructure. The case shows the Tribunal`s strict interpretation of the new code and states that the “occupier” of the country and the request for a code agreement must be fully considered. When an operator wishes to install telecommunications equipment on a field, the notice referred to in paragraph 20 of the code must be notified to the occupier of the land. The occupant could be the tenant or landlord – that`s a fact.
If CTIL had asked the Tribunal for an agreement between Vodafone and Compton, this could have been granted. Although we are not parties to the installation contract, we will need land rights for access, repair and maintenance of the facilities in the future. The land rights we need are generally integrated into a tripartite facility between the developer, the PKI and us. Article 24 of the code provides that the consideration is an amount or amount representing the market value of the agreement of the person concerned to confer the right to the code or to be bound by the law of the code.” Market value is the amount that a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller for the agreement and various assumptions must be made, including that the rights to which the transaction relates are not related to the provision or use of an electronic communications network. The court called this “no network acceptance.” 2. The Tribunal found that, even if it was wrong about the extent of its jurisdiction, it could at best impose an agreement that would be subject to Vodafone`s voluntary renunciation of its rights to use the site. However, Compton was not asked to accept a contingency right and the Tribunal found that it could not assert an agreement on any basis other than that invoked by CTIL. The court found that it was not competent to impose a code agreement between Compton and CTIL, in accordance with Rule 20 of the code, for two reasons: the university challenged a second point that, where an operator intended to apply for an interim right agreement, this must be related to an application for permanent code rights, since article 26 , when deciding to grant interim rights, must be associated with a request for permanent code rights. , since it is the operator. A “good and questionable” case.