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
