ARLA/CLUSTER: Radioamador islandês põe o Estado em tribunal após suposta interferência pelos sistemas VDSL de acesso à Internet dos vizinhos

[João Costa > CT1FBF]

Court ruling following alleged interference to internet VDSL

A ruling was handed down in the Reykjavík District Court on July 8, in the
case of *Bjarni Sverrisson, TF3GB*, against the Icelandic state; Case no.
E-7441/2019

A translation of the post by Iceland's national amateur radio society the
IRA reads:

The case was heard in parliament on December 19, 2019 but was taken to
court on June 10 after the main hearing. Outcome: The case was dismissed
without a claim.

The IRA's board of directors and the EMC committee will study the ruling
which is at
https://www.heradsdomstolar.is/domar/domur/?id=56216ad9-d72d-4e7e-b34e-88e680831264

The discussion of this issue is pointed out in the �RA Annual Report
2019/20, chapter 9.a on p. 97. Furthermore, the minutes of the Board of
Directors (in the same report). Board meetings no. 4 / 2019-20 p. 141; no.
6 / 2019-20 p. 145 and no. 7 / 2019-20 p. 149, see
http://www.ira.is/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/15022020-%C3%81rssk%C3%BDrsla-2019-20-pdf.pdf

Judgment of the court:

"From the above, it is clear that the plaintiff's neighbors' complaint
became the reason for the Post and Telecom Administration to consider
whether the plaintiff's broadcasts cause harmful interruptions to
electronic communications at the neighbor's home within the meaning of the
first paragraph. Article 64 Act no. 81/2003, on electronic communications,
and whether there was a reason for the Agency to intervene for that reason
on the basis of its authorizations under the same Act.

It is also clear that the decision of the Post and Telecom Administration
from October 29, 2019 is based on the fact that the plaintiff's broadcasts
caused interruptions to telecommunications at the neighbor's home. It can
therefore only be seen from the case file that the plaintiff's neighbor had
significant, individual and legally protected interests in the resolution
of the case at the administrative level.

In light of this, it is the conclusion of the court that the plaintiff had
to give his neighbor the opportunity to defend himself in the court case
before him. As this was not done, it is inevitable to dismiss the case from
the court without a claim, cf. Paragraph 2 Article 18 Act no. 91/1991, on
the handling of civil cases ".

Source IRA https://tinyurl.com/IcelandIRA
-------------- próxima parte ----------
Um anexo em HTML foi limpo...
URL: http://radio-amador.net/pipermail/cluster/attachments/20200720/7808e5f1/attachment.htm