Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 7 January 2020 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e. V. v Vodafone GmbH

(Case C-5/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e. V.

Defendant: Vodafone GmbH

Questions referred

Is Article 3(1) of the TSM Regulation ¹ to be interpreted as meaning that the right of end-users to use terminal equipment of their choice via their internet access service also includes the right, where the internet access service is provided via terminal equipment (e.g., smartphone, tablet) connected directly to the public telecommunications network interface, to also use that internet access service with other terminal equipment (e.g., other tablet, smartphone) (tethering)?

If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:

Is Article 3(1) and (2) of that regulation to be interpreted as meaning that there will be an impermissible limitation of the end-user’s choice of terminal equipment where tethering is neither contractually prohibited nor technically restricted, but is, on the basis of an agreement on data volumes used via tethering and unlike data volumes used without tethering, not covered by a zero-cost tariff but offset against a basic volume and calculated separately in the event that that basic volume is exceeded?’

____________

¹ Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union (OJ 2015 L 310, p. 1).