New Building Code requirements for high-speed internet infrastructure cause uncertainty

According to the draft Act amending the Building Code and other Acts (655 SE) currently under discussion in the Riigikogu, every new or thoroughly renovated apartment building must have the necessary infrastructure for high-speed internet. Estonian legislation would also be aligned with Regulation (EU) 2024/1309—the Gigabit Infrastructure Regulation. The Chamber (ECCI) has proposed to the Riigikogu, among other things, that two grounds for refusing telecom operators’ access to state and local government buildings be removed from the draft.

The state and local governments would have overly broad grounds to reject telecom operators’ applications

The draft plans to amend the Building Code so that telecom operators gain the right to access buildings owned by the state or local governments. However, several grounds for refusal are set out, including the building’s unsuitability, lack of space, or risks to human health or national security. The Chamber finds that the grounds for refusal have been unduly broadened and do not take account of Article 3 of the EU Gigabit Infrastructure Regulation, under which all justified requests must be granted on fair and reasonable terms. The Chamber has previously drawn the drafters’ attention to this, but it was not taken into account because the state and local governments consider it necessary to have broader grounds for refusing the installation of mobile network active equipment. We see that overly broad grounds for refusal may create uncertainty in practice and hinder companies’ investments.

Two new grounds for refusal were also added to the draft after the coordination phase (insufficient space in the building for installing mobile network active equipment; and the building being linked to the security of infrastructure necessary for the provision of a vital service). In the Chamber’s view, these additional grounds are unnecessary because they are already covered by other grounds for refusal. Moreover, this would leave state and local authorities with unduly subjective discretion to reject telecom operators’ applications. The Chamber has therefore proposed deleting these two new grounds and rewording the provision so that a request may be refused only in unavoidable situations.

The cost-recovery rules need clarification

Under the draft, the state or a local government unit would have the right to require a telecom operator to cover the costs related to the installation and subsequent use of mobile network active equipment. The Chamber stresses that the wording must be unambiguous so that only actual costs are covered, and to avoid situations where a municipality demands an unreasonably high rent. A vague framework could deter businesses and slow the development of communications networks. The Chamber has therefore proposed amending the draft so that the obligation to cover costs is limited to expenses directly related to the installation and use of the equipment.