The judicial reviews regarding the telecommunications tariff increase are still ongoing, even though the Council of State made an initial decision on July 28, rejecting the request to suspend the implementation of the decree increasing telecommunications tariffs. However, it granted the Lebanese state, represented by the Ministry of Telecommunications, a 15-day deadline, of which six days have passed, to provide evidence and studies justifying the background of decision number 155 issued by the Council of Ministers on May 20, 2022. This decision stipulated a "reduction" of tariffs and fees for telecommunications services by 66.67%. The subsequent decree number 9458 dated June 24, 2022, which enforced this decision, included a significant increase in telecommunications service tariffs, contrary to the Council of Ministers' decision that mandated a reduction. Notably, the decree did not address mobile communication tariffs, focusing only on fixed network communications and services.
It is essential to clarify that the Council of State is examining two appeals presented before it. One was submitted by "United," challenging decree 9458 and seeking to suspend its implementation, while the other was submitted by lawyer Pierre Harb, who demanded the annulment of the mentioned decree and the annulment of decision 155 on the grounds that it contradicts the provisions and stipulations of the Lebanese Constitution and the Currency and Credit Law, undermining the concept of national sovereignty.
Based on this, the Council rejected the request to suspend the implementation of the challenged decree, decree number 9458, which specifies the "launch of services and modification of tariffs and fees for some telephone, internet, leased line, virtual network services, and information transmission services via fiber optic, copper, and wireless networks for individuals and commercial institutions." This was in accordance with Article 77, which states that "suspension of execution is not permissible if the review aims to annul an organizational decree." Since the challenged decree is organizational, the Council's decision to reject the suspension was expected.
Consequently, the request to suspend the implementation of the decree in the appeal brought by "United" was overlooked, while the Council opened the door for the possibility of challenging the decision issued by Council of Ministers number 155 by delaying the ruling on the request for suspension and assigning the respondent to provide the administrative file related to the appeal submitted by lawyer Harb. This file must include the Ministry of Telecommunications communications number 1/1245 dated April 14, 2022, and number 1/1548 dated April 12, 2022, along with details of the packages and special offers for low-income individuals referred to in the challenged decision, the systems of the two mobile companies, their administrative files, and the scientific and technical reports and studies that the Council of Ministers relied upon to take the challenged decision. The respondent is required to provide all regulations and decisions related to the management and operation of the two mobile companies, to execute this decision within two weeks from the date of notification.
According to judicial sources, it was evident to delay the ruling on the request to suspend the decision issued by the Council of Ministers. This procedure is common in most reviews presented before the Council of State to expand access to documents and evidence that could assist in decision-making, especially when the data is not clear to the Council. The limited timeframe for the Ministry of Telecommunications to present the documents and studies that supported the tariff increase—set at only two weeks—is considered a serious measure to avoid protracted delays in the file.
Therefore, sources assert that not suspending the implementation of the decree or decision does not mean they cannot be annulled, as the review is still ongoing, especially if the relevant administration, namely the Ministry of Telecommunications, fails to convince the Council of State of the background and validity of its decision to increase tariffs.
