Vodafone v Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (Case C-58/08) [2010] ECR I-4999

Facts

  • The European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Case C-58/08, Vodafone [2010] ECR I-4999, examined the EU’s authority to regulate retail roaming charges within the internal market.
  • Regulation (EC) No 717/2007 set limits on charges for roaming on public mobile telephone networks within the EU.
  • The legal basis for the regulation was Article 95 EC (now Article 114 TFEU), which permits the EU to harmonize national laws impacting the internal market.
  • Vodafone and other parties challenged the Regulation, arguing it exceeded the EU’s powers by interfering with Member States’ competences, particularly in areas such as taxation.

Issues

  1. Whether Article 114 TFEU (formerly Article 95 EC) provides a valid legal basis for EU regulation of retail roaming charges within the internal market.
  2. Whether the Regulation exceeded the EU’s harmonization powers by affecting Member States’ authority, especially regarding indirect taxation.
  3. Whether differences among Member States’ rules on roaming charges created appreciable barriers to the functioning of the internal market and justified EU intervention.

Decision

  • The ECJ held that Article 114 TFEU did provide a valid legal basis for the Regulation setting limits on roaming charges.
  • The Court determined that the purpose of the Regulation was to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market, not to harmonize indirect taxation.
  • It found that differences in national rules on roaming charges created real obstacles to cross-border trade and distorted competition, meeting the “appreciable effect” test.
  • The ECJ rejected Vodafone’s arguments and upheld the Regulation, affirming the Commission’s role in demonstrating the necessity of harmonization under Article 114 TFEU.

Legal Principles

  • Article 114 TFEU permits the EU to harmonize laws where national differences have or are likely to have an appreciable effect on the internal market.
  • The “appreciable effect” test assesses whether regulatory divergences hinder cross-border trade or competition within the EU.
  • Measures impacting consumer prices, such as regulating retail roaming charges, may fall within the scope of Article 114 if their primary objective is improving internal market conditions.
  • EU harmonization powers are not precluded if the primary aim is creating a single market, even if measures have indirect effects on Member States’ revenue.

Conclusion

The ECJ clarified the breadth of the EU’s internal market competence under Article 114 TFEU, confirming the legality of the Roaming Regulation and strengthening the Union's ability to harmonize rules that address trade barriers and encourage competition, thereby ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal