interesting discussion of jurisdiction.
In the present instance, we regard ARCEP’s proposed reporting requirement as constituting an extra- territorial obligation that ought not to be applied to operators who are neither established in France nor directly providing services within France, merely by virtue of their interconnecting with a network that does operate in France.
Similar considerations apply, mutatis mutandis, to the application of a reporting requirement to the providers of content services established and operating outside France. We do not consider the provision of content in the French language to be sufficient, by itself, to place the content provider within ARCEP’s jurisdiction.
We consider this lack of jurisdiction to be sufficient reason for ARCEP to withdraw categories (b) and (d) from the scope of persons enumerated in Article 1 of the Draft Decision.
-e