Recently, the State Consultative Council issued a preliminary decision rejecting a request to suspend the implementation of the decree increasing telecommunications tariffs submitted by the "United Alliance," despite it causing confirmed and unfair harm to consumers according to Article 67 of the Law Organizing the Council itself, not to mention it allegedly violates the constitution, according to the petitioners. However, the Council did not completely close the door on the review, placing itself in a gray area, in a first-of-its-kind precedent, as it hesitated to rule on the request to suspend the implementation of the contested Cabinet decision concerning changes to the tariffs for telecommunications and subscriptions in the mobile networks.
What does this mean? On May 20, 2022, the Cabinet issued Decision No. 155, which stipulated a "reduction" of the tariffs and fees for telecommunications by 66.67%. Consequently, Decree No. 9458 was issued on June 24, 2022, to enforce the decision, which included a noticeable increase in the tariffs for telecommunications and communication services contrary to the Cabinet's decision that mandated a reduction in tariffs. Furthermore, the decree did not address mobile telephony tariffs at all, only focusing on fixed-line telecommunications and services.
In detail, the State Consultative Council concluded:
1. The request to suspend the implementation of the contested decree, namely Decree No. 9458 which states the "launch of services and modification of tariffs and fees for some telephone, internet, and leasing line services, and virtual network services, and information transfer services via optical fiber, copper, and wireless networks for individuals, commercial entities, enterprises, and companies," was rejected.
2. The request to suspend the contested Cabinet decision regarding the approval of the project for the contested decree, specifically Decision 155 issued on May 20, which calls for increasing the tariffs for telephone and internet services, leasing line services, and virtual networks via optical fiber, copper, and wireless networks, was also rejected.
3. There was a delay in ruling on the request to suspend the contested Cabinet decision regarding changes to the tariffs for mobile telephony and subscriptions due to insufficient data in the current file that would justify a decision in this regard, necessitating a delay in addressing the suspension request and assigning the parties involved to provide the necessary administrative files related to the current review. This must include letters from the Ministry of Telecommunications No. 1/1245 dated April 14, 2022, and No. 1/1548 dated April 12, 2022, the packages and special offers for low-income individuals mentioned in the contested decision, operational systems from both mobile companies, and the administrative files for each, alongside the scientific and technical reports that the Cabinet relied upon to make the contested decision. The parties involved must submit all regulations and decisions related to the management and operation of the mobile companies, to be implemented within two weeks from the date of notification.
Two weeks to respond means that the disputes committee at the Ministry of Justice has two weeks to secure these responses and data from the Ministry of Telecommunications and both mobile companies before the Council makes its final decision regarding Cabinet Decision No. 155. However, the stakeholders have noted several observations regarding the State Consultative Council's decision, the most significant of which are:
- In a first-of-its-kind precedent, the respondent provided two responses, one from the Ministry of Telecommunications and the other reflecting the viewpoints of the state-owned mobile companies. Notably, the two responses are not consistent or matching in their opinions, with the Ministry of Telecommunications dismissing the need for a review by the Advisory Committee at the Ministry of Justice, while the second response criticized reliance on the Court of Accounts report, even though both documents are fundamental legal bases that cannot be overlooked.
- The complainant is discredited on the grounds that they lack any standing, despite having multiple lines on the mobile network and therefore being a party with interest.
- The delay in addressing the request to suspend the implementation of the Cabinet decision seems to be a matter of buying time, especially since the petitioning party complains about the illegality of the decision, which should have been issued exclusively in a decree and not as a decision in accordance with Legislative Decree No. 126/1959, Article 281, which mandates that telecommunication tariffs must be issued via a decree. Thus, the request for the respondent to provide certain documents and regulations does not negate the illegality of the decision.
- The manipulation of consumers' balances by converting their value from dollars to lira and then back to dollars is purely a financial operation not based on any scientific studies that the Council would like to be provided with, where 94% of the Lebanese people's balances have been deducted, which contradicts two rules: first, that transactions are only permissible in the national currency as confirmed by the Advisory Committee, and second, that the balances are the property of their owners pre-paid for in advance, thus they cannot be seized or subjected to an arbitrary process, as also affirmed by the Advisory Committee that it is impermissible to tamper with the balances.
