Previous issue Next issue

As Efficient Competitor test

Unilateral Practices

The Italian Competition Authority fines several telecom companies for margin squeeze (Telecom Italia / Vodafone)
Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)
On 13 December 2017, the Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”) fined Telecom Italia S.p.A. (“TIM”) and Vodafone Italia S.p.A. (“Vodafone”) € 3.7 million and € 5.8 million respectively for abusing their dominant position on the market for wholesale bulk SMS services. The ICA considered that each mobile (...)

The Italian Competition Authority fines a company for abuse of dominance in the single-wrapped ice cream market through rebates (Unilever)
University of Rome "La Sapienza"
On 6 December 2017, the Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”, “Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato”, “AGCM”) sanctioned Unilever Italia Mkt. Operations S.r.l. (“Unilever”) for an abuse of dominant position in the Italian ice cream sector in breach of Article 102 TFUE. After a two-years (...)

The EU Court of Justice endorses an effects-based assessment of rebates (Intel)
White & Case (Brussels)
,
White & Case (Brussels)
,
White & Case (Brussels)
On 6 September 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU" or "Court") essentially held in Intel that the European Commission ("Commission") cannot consider rebates, and in particular loyalty rebates, as per se illegal. Rather, the Commission needs to show that a specific rebates (...)

The EU Court of Justice issues landmark judgment on legal treatment of fidelity rebates granted by dominant companies (Intel)
Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)
On 6 September 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) issued its long-awaited judgment in the Intel case (Case C-413/14 P), setting aside the General Court’s (“GC”) judgment. The GC must now re-assess the legality of the Commission’s decision in light of the ECJ’s ruling. Intel was (...)

The EU Court of Justice modernizes abuse of dominance (Intel)
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (Brussels)
,
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (Brussels)
,
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (London)
(“CJEU”) set aside General Court’s 2014 Intel judgment, upholding a European Commission (the “Commission”) decision fining Intel €1.06 billion for abuse of dominance through exclusivity rebates . The CJEU held that the General Court had erred in failing to examine all of Intel’s arguments calling (...)

The EU Court of Justice renders its judgment in a case regarding loyalty rebates granted by dominant companies (Intel)
Baker Botts (Brussels)
An alternative view on accuracy and administrability Introduction In its judgment in Intel of 6 September 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) rejected the notion that particular loyalty rebates granted by a dominant company are subject to a per se illegality standard of (...)

The EU Court of Justice quashes the 2014 judgment of the General Court that upheld a fine of €1.06 billion for an abuse of dominant position by implementing loyalty rebates based on exclusivity agreements (Intel)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
On September 6, 2017 ,the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) quashed the 2014 judgment of the General Court (GC) that upheld a fine of €1.06 billion ($1.5 billion) on Intel Corporation Inc. (Intel) for abusing a dominant market position by implementing loyalty rebates based on (...)

The EU Court of Justice refers a case back to the General Court for re-examination (Intel)
Norton Rose Fulbright (Brussels)
,
Norton Rose Fulbright (London)
Major victory for Intel as CJEU sends case back to General Court for re-examination* On 6 September, the EU’s highest court, the Court of Justice (CJEU), released its long-awaited decision in the Intel case, in which the Commission imposed a fine of €1.06 billion – at the time, the largest fine (...)

The EU Court of justice revisits forty years of case law on when a dominant company’s rebate scheme may be abusive (Intel)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
,
Baker McKenzie (London)
In its ruling on the European Commission’s 500 page Intel decision, in a crisp 150 paragraphs, the EU Court of Justice (the Court) revisited forty years of jurisprudence on when a dominant company’s rebate scheme may be abusive. Though no final decision for Intel, the case marks a potentially (...)

Roundtable: The EU Court of Justice reverses the General Court’s decision in an abuse of dominance case against a big tech company in the market for processors and rules that rebates should be judged under rule of reason (Intel)
Compass Lexecon (Brussels)
,
The Graduate Institute for International and Development Studies (Geneva)
,
Positive Competition (Brussels)
Roundtable Discussion on the ECJ ruling in Intel* On 6 September 2017, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) issued a landmark judgment where it set aside the judgment of the General Court (“GC”) in the highly debated Intel matter. This judgment is of particular significance because it provides (...)

The EU Court of Justice annuls a General Court ruling that upheld the fine imposed by the Commission for an abuse of dominance (Intel)
Jones Day (Brussels)
,
Jones Day (Brussels)
,
Jones Day (Frankfurt)
What happened? The European Court of Justice ("ECJ") set aside a General Court ruling that had upheld a €1.06 billion fine imposed by the European Commission on Intel for abusing its dominant position in the market for x86 central processing units ("CPUs"). Background In its 2009 decision, (...)

Advocate General Wahl recommends that the EU Court of Justice grant an appeal against the judgement of the General Court, which had upheld a decision of the European Commission imposing a fine of € 1.06 billion for abuse of a dominant position (Intel)
Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)
On 20 October 2016, Advocate General Wahl rendered his opinion on Intel’s appeal before the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) against the judgement of the General Court, which had upheld a decision of the European Commission of 13 May 2009 imposing a fine of € 1.06 billion for abuse (...)

EU Court of Justice Advocate General Wahl delivers his opinion in a case regarding rebates and calls for a new approach to Article 102 (Intel)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
Call for a common-sense approach to Article 102 - Advocate General Wahl on Intel* If AG Kokott in Post Danmark II was a 102 hawk – ordoliberal-redux, fossilizing form over function, economics on the “too difficult pile” for authorities and courts – then AG Wahl firmly sets out his stall as the 102 (...)

The EU Court of Justice rules on retroactive loyalty rebates and offer clarity(Post Danmark II)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
The first Post Danmark case in 2012 brought about a modest antitrust revolution on Article 102 applicable to discrimination. Rarefied economic concepts were confirmed. Price discrimination as a standalone abuse was all but confined to a historical footnote in antitrust textbooks, to be (...)

The EU Court of Justice confirms “safe harbour” for volume rebates but creates new challenges (Post Danmark II)
Gibson Dunn (Brussels)
,
Gibson Dunn (Brussels)
Rethinking Rebates Policy Under EU Competition Law* On 6 October 2015, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in a case concerning rebates and when they fall foul of EU competition law. Background The case concerns Post Danmark and, unlike appeals against European Commission Decisions, (...)

The EU Court of Justice rules on retroactive loyalty rebates (Post Danmark II)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
On October 6, 2015, the European Court of Justice (the ECJ) issued an important judgment clarifying the application of Article 102 to retroactive loyalty rebates (Post Danmark AS, Case C 23/14). The case, which had been referred to the ECJ by the Danish Commercial Court, concerned rebates for (...)

The EU Court of Justice rules on whether a retroactive loyalty rebates scheme is liable to have an exclusionary effect (Post Danmark II)
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (Brussels)
,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (Brussels)
,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (Brussels)
The EU Court of Justice has handed down its much-awaited preliminary ruling in Post Danmark II . This ruling marks an ‘evolution’ rather than a ‘revolution’ in the assessment of rebates under Article 102 TFEU. While regrettably unclear in certain passages, some aspects of the Court of Justice’s (...)

The EU Court of Justice rules on issues concerning retroactive rebates and the procedures through which these rebates can be characterized as abusive (Post Danmark II)
Covington & Burling (Brussels)
,
Linklaters (Brussels)
I. The Parties Post Danmark S/A is a Danish undertaking that provides postal services in Denmark. The undertaking provides postal services and applies uniform tariffs throughout Danish national territory. At the time of the main proceedings, in 2007 and 2008, Post Danmark was controlled by the (...)

The Belgian Competition Authority issues a decision following the first application of its unique settlement procedure in article 102 cases (Stanleybet / Nationale Loterij)
Liège University - IEJE
,
Liège University - IEJE
I. The Parties Nationale Loterij NV (‘NL’) was founded in 1934 and organises public lotteries in Belgium ever since. NL holds a legal monopoly on this market . In addition, NL competes with other companies on the Belgian sports betting market. Stanleybet Belgium NV, Stanley International (...)

The Spanish High Court issues landmark judgment on the need to establish foreclosure effects of a margin squeeze (Correos)
Linklaters (Madrid)
,
Linklaters (Madrid)
1 Introduction On 21 January 2014, the Spanish Markets and Competition Commission (“CNMC”) imposed a fine of €8,170,000 on the Spanish postal service incumbent Sociedad Estatal Correos y Telégrafos, S.A. (“Correos) for allegedly abusing its dominant position on the wholesale market for postal (...)

ECJ Advocate General Kokott deals another blow to economic assessment of rebates (Post Danmark II)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
Advocate general deals another blow to economic assessment of rebates* It is never a good sign when an advocate general’s opinion warns the European Court of Justice (ECJ) not to be swayed by “ephemeral trends” or the “Zeitgeist” of economic analysis, but instead to stick to the “legal foundations (...)

The EU General Court upholds the European Commission’s decision regarding exclusivity rebates on the microprocessor market (Intel)
Dentons (Brussels)
Introduction On 12 June 2014 the General Court issued a judgment upholding in its entirety the European Commission’s decision of 13 May 2009 imposing a fine of €1.06 billion on Intel for abusing its dominant position in the market for x86 central processing units ("CPUs"). In its ruling on the (...)

The EU General Court upholds Commission’s decision imposing a fine on a manufacturer for restricting competition and foreclosing competitors by granting exclusivity rebates in the market for computer processors (Intel)
DG COMP (Brussels)
The views expressed in this memo are those of the author’s, and do not reflect the opinions of other CRA experts, or CRA’s clients. A test-case for the effects-based approach In a long-awaited ruling, General Court judgment has confirmed the Commission’s 2009 Intel décision. The Commission’s (...)

The General Court upholds in its entirety the European Commission’s decision imposing a fine on a microprocessor manufacturer for abusing a dominant position in the market for desktop and laptop microprocessors (Intel)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
In a long-awaited judgment issued on June 12, 2014, the General Court upheld in its entirety the European Commission’s May 13, 2009, decision imposing a fine of €1.06 billion ($1.5 billion) on Intel for abusing a dominant position in the market for x86 CPUs. In particular, the court upheld the (...)

The EU General Court upholds the EU Commission’s record fine and states that exclusivity-inducing rebates are anticompetitive by default (Intel)
DG COMP (Brussels)
Intel and the future of Article 102* A test-case for the effects-based approach In a long-awaited ruling, last week’s General Court judgment has confirmed the Commission’s 2009 Intel decision. The Commission’s decision had found the chip producer to infringe competition rules by granting (...)

The UK Office of Communications (Ofcom) dismisses case in pricing wholesale calls and distinguishes between technical margin squeeze and abuse of dominance (Thus / Gama Telecom / BT)
British Competition Authority - CMA (London)
,
CRA International (London)
When is a margin squeeze not an abuse?* On 20 June 2013 Ofcom closed its long-running investigation of BT’s pricing of its Wholesale Calls product with a “no grounds for action” decision. The investigation, which commenced in August 2008, focused on allegations of margin squeeze made by THUS plc (...)

The Danish Supreme Court ends a decade-long case concerning the national postal incumbent by delivering the final judgment in the predatory price case (Post Danmark)
Kromann Reumert (Copenhagen)
On 15 February 2013, the Danish Supreme Court ended the decade-long Post Danmark case by delivering the final judgment in the case. This note gives a brief overview of the facts and the procedure of the case and then comments on what we can learn from the Supreme Court judgment in its (...)

The EU Court of Justice entirely dismisses pharmaceutical company’s appeal on abusive patent misuse (AstraZeneca)
Mircea & Partners (Bucharest)
I. Introduction On 6 December 2012, the CJEU issued its judgment in the long-running AstraZeneca litigation. The General Court’s judgment has been upheld in its entirety. The only victorious battle scored by the appellant refers to what type of conduct before the national regulatory authorities (...)

The Belgian Competition Council decides there are no grounds for action against the incumbent telecom operator for the launch of new tariff plan for fixed telephony services (Belgacom)
European Commission
Belgium : The Belgium Competition Council decides there are no grounds for action against Belgacom for the launch of Happy Time Tariff Plan for fixed Telephony Services* On 29 November 2012, the Competition Council (the Council) concluded that on the basis of the information in its possession (...)

The Belgian Competition Council’s College of Prosecutors dismisses complaints against telecom operator for abusing its dominant position in the market for fixed telephony, due to margin squeeze on its "Happy Time offer" (Tele2 / Belgacom)
Liège University - IEJE
,
Covington & Burling (Brussels)
I. The Parties Belgacom S.A. is the incumbent operator on the Belgian telecom market and former historical operator. In 2005, Tele2 was a 100% subsidiary of a Swedish company. In the meantime, this company was sold to KPN, a Dutch company, in 2007. II. The Facts Access to the telecommunication (...)

The EU General Court dismisses Spanish telecom incumbent’s appeal against a Commission decision that imposed a €151 million fine on the company for a margin squeeze in the regulated national broadband market (Telefónica)
German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bonn)
On 29 March 2012 the General Court (“GC”) of the European Union dismissed an appeal lodged by Telefónica and its wholly owned subsidiary Telefónica España (hereinafter “Telefónica”) against a Commission decision of 4 July 2007 that imposed a €151 million fine on the company for having abused its (...)

The EU Court of Justice endorses an effects-based approach on the assessment of low pricing policy under Article 102 TFEU (Post Danmark)
University of Amsterdam
Post Danmark: does the ECJ take the effects based approach further than a mere price/cost-test and does it oblige the national judge to apply that effects based approach ex nunc?* In a grand chamber judgment in case C‑209/10, Post Danmark, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) handed down a (...)

The EU Court of Justice affirms the application of a consumer oriented effects-based approach to exclusionary pricing practices of dominant undertakings and the "as efficient competitor test" as a basis for their assessment: A big step towards the consistent application of an effects-based approach to exclusionary pricing practices of dominant undertakings (Post Danmark)
DG COMP (Brussels)
The author is Principal Expert in Antitrust Policy at DG Competition, European Commission. The views expressed in this article are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of DG Competition or the European Commission. The author expresses its thanks Ekaterina Rousseva and Carles Esteva (...)

The Swedish Market Court finds that national postal operator abused its dominant position in the market for bulk mail deliveries (Bring CityMail Sweden / Posten Meddelande)
Stockholm University
In a ruling of 8 June 2011, the Swedish Market Court prohibits the national postal operator Posten from applying a worksharing discount system on certain bulk mail deliveries. The discount system is found to have foreclosing effects, and its application constitutes an abuse of Posten‘s dominant (...)

ECJ Advocate General Mengozzi issues an opinion on price discrimination and exclusionary abuses of dominance in the bulk mail industry (Post Danmark)
Gatti Pavesi Bianchi (Milan)
Price discrimination and exclusionary abuses of dominance: A call for effects-based enforcement* It is often said, with good statistical records, that opinions of the Advocate Generals are to a large extent endorsed by the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”). If so, the opinion recently handed (...)

The EU Court of Justice issues a preliminary ruling in a case concerning price squeeze abuses providing clear guidance on this issue (TeliaSonera)
Jones Day (Brussels)
,
Jones Day (Brussels)
On 17 February 2011, the European Union Court of Justice ("CJ") issued a preliminary ruling in an ongoing case concerning price squeeze abuses. Questions were referred to the CJ from the Stockholm District Court, which has before it a case between Swedish telecommunications company TeliaSonera (...)

The EU Court of Justice holds a preliminary ruling in a margin squeeze case in the telecomunications sector (TeliaSonera Sverige)
Airbus Defence and Space (Toulouse)
,
European Commission - DG CNECT (Brussels)
The opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the employers of the authors. Warm thanks are expressed to Dilip Roy, Ben Harries and Simon Maunder for their contribution to this paper. Background Until the (...)

The EU Court of Justice upholds the €12.6 million fine imposed by the EU Commission for abuse of dominant position in the German telephony fixed market (Deutsche Telekom)
Dentons (Brussels)
,
BDO Legal (Frankfurt)
On October 14, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) issued its judgment in Deutsche Telekom AG vs. Commission (Case C-280/08 P, hereinafter the “Judgment”) dismissing an appeal brought by Deutsche Telekom AG (Telekom) against a judgment of the Court of First Instance (now the (...)

The EU Court of Justice upholds EU Commission’s fine against telecommunications operator in margin squeeze case (Deutsche Telekom)
Jones Day (Brussels)
,
Jones Day (Brussels)
This article is the winner for the business category, unilateral conducts section of the 2012 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. On 14 October 2010, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) upheld the European Commission’s € 12.6 million fine on (...)

The EU General Court confirms fine imposed by the European Commission for abuse of dominant position in the market for reverse-vending machines (RVM) used to collect used beverage containers focusing on exclusive agreements and loyalty-based rebates (Tomra)
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (Brussels)
On September 9, 2010, the General Court of the EU (the Court) issued its judgment in Tomra vs. Commission (Case T-155/06), dismissing an appeal brought by Tomra against a European Commission decision imposing a €24 million fine for abuse of its dominant position in Germany, Austria, Sweden, the (...)

The EU Advocate General Mazák seeks to affirm judgment in margin squeeze case (Deutsche Telekom)
Jones Day (Brussels)
,
Jones Day (Brussels)
On 22 April 2010, Advocate General (‘AG’) Jan Mazák at the European Court of Justice (‘ECJ’) issued his opinion in Deutsche Telekom‘s appeal to the ECJ against the General Court ruling upholding the European Commission decision to impose a € 12.6 M fine on Deutsche Telekom for abusive margin squeeze. (...)

The Swiss Competition Authority fines an ADSL provider for margin squeeze (Swisscom)
Sigma Legal (Geneva)
,
Tetra Laval (Pully)
The telecom undertaking Swisscom provides, through its subordinate entity Bluewin, ADSL services (broadband internet) to final consumers (retail market). Furthermore, Swisscom offers the preliminary service which is indispensible for broadband internet. Swisscom/Bluewin’s competitors, including (...)

The Belgian Competition Council fines a mobile operator due to price squeeze practices (Proximus)
Altius (Brussels)
,
Altius (Brussels)
In the telecommunications sector, recent years have seen an important increase of cases concerning abuse of dominant position brought before either the European Commission or the national competition authorities. In this respect, one of the recurrent issues in these cases is the so-called (...)

The Belgian Competition Council finds the historical telecom operator guilty of margin squeeze and imposes a fine of €66,3 million (Belgacom)
Liège University - IEJE
,
Liedekerke Wolters Waelbroeck Kirkpatrick (Brussels)
The Belgian competition Council finds Belgacom guilty of margin squeeze and imposes a fine of €66,3 million. I. The Parties Belgacom S.A. is the historical operator on the Belgian telecom market and provides mobile telecom services through its 100% subsidiary Belgacom Mobile Belgium (“BMB” - (...)

The European Commission fines a US semiconductor chip manufacturer for abuse of a dominant position (Intel)
DG COMP (Brussels)
,
DG COMP (Brussels)
,
DG COMP (Brussels)
"Commission finds abuse of dominance in the Intel case"* I. Introduction On 13 May 2009, the European Commission concluded its Intel investigation by way of a formal Decision. The Commission found that Intel had abused its dominant position in x86 Central Processing Units (CPUs) by engaging (...)

The European Commission fines a leading computer manufacturer for abuse of its dominant position (Intel)
Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)
,
Practising Law Institute (New York)
On 21 September 2009, the Commission published the non-confidential version of the Intel decision of 13 May 2009, and a summary of the decision was also published in the Official Journal of 22 September 2009. The materials confirm that the Commission has challenged two specific practices: (i) (...)

The French Supreme Court clarifies the use of the indispensable input criterion in a margin squeeze case (SFR-France Télécom)
French Competition Authority (Paris)
The French Supreme Court decided a margin squeeze case in the telecom sector after long proceedings and ten years after an undertakings’ association filed its complaint. In this case, the French branch of the European Telecom and Networks Association (ETNA) complained before the French (...)

The European Commission publishes its guidance paper on exclusionary abuses under Article 82 EC
White & Case (Brussels)
,
White & Case (Brussels)
,
White & Case (Brussels)
I. BACKGROUND The European Commission published the 24th February 2009 a Communication containing its long-awaited Guidance Paper on exclusionary abuses under Article 82 C(Commission Communication – Guidance on the Commission’s Enforcement Priorities in Applying Article 82 EC Treaty to Abusive (...)

The European Commission issues a Communication on abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings
Jones Day (Brussels)
,
European Commission
On Wednesday, 3 December 2008, the European Commission issued the long awaited Communication on abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings. This marks the end of an extensive review process, launched in December 2005 by the Commission’s Staff Discussion Paper on exclusionary abuses (...)

The European Commission issues guidance on its enforcement priorities in applying EU rules on abuse of a dominant position to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings
DG COMP (Brussels)
,
European Commission - DG JUST
"Implementing an effects-based approach to Article 82"* I. Introduction On 3 December 2008, the Commission issued Guidance on its enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings. In so doing, the Commission formally endorsed an (...)

The Competition Commissioner Kroes discusses future role of guidelines in article 82 cases
Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)
,
Practising Law Institute (New York)
In a speech on 25 September 2008, Commissioner Kroes provided an update on the status of the Article 82 Guidelines with respect to exclusionary abuses. In this regard, Commissioner Kroes noted that a new draft document was created and circulated to the Member States, and earlier in September (...)

The European Court of First Instance examines an appeal against a Commission’s decision on abuse of dominant position (Deutsche Telekom)
Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)
,
Practising Law Institute (New York)
Details of Deutsche Telekom’s appeal against the Court of First Instance’s judgment of 10 April 2008 have been published. According to the summary of the appeal, Deutsche Telekom is arguing, inter alia, that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 82 EC and the principle of legitimate (...)

The Brussels Court of Appeal annuls the interim decision of the President of the Competition Council on the telecom incumbent’s bundled tariffs (Belgacom)
Oracle (Brussels)
Background information Belgacom used to be the autonomous public-sector company that ruled the government monopoly in telecommunications. This was the case until 1994, when the company changed into a “société anonyme”, and the liberalization of the telecom sector was initiated (which was fully (...)

The EU Commission adopts a decision against Spanish incumbent telecoms operator for abuse of its dominant position in the broadband market (Telefonica)
European Commission - DG JUST
,
OECD - Competition Division (Mexico City)
"Margin squeeze in the Spanish broadband market: a rational and profitable strategy"* On 4 July 2007, the European Commission adopted a decision against the Spanish incumbent telecoms operator Telefonica for a very serious abuse of its dominant position in the Spanish broadband market. The (...)

The Lithuanian Competition Authority fines the former telecom incumbent for margin squeeze limiting access to ADSL broadband internet access service (Teo)
Lithuanian Competition Council (Vilnius)
On 5 October 2006 the Lithuanian Competition Council (CC) issued a decision establishing a fine of LTL 3,011,000 (approx. EUR 872,046) on TEO LT, AB (TEO) for the abuse of a dominant position prohibited by Article 9 of the Law on Competition. This was the third time that TEO, a former telecom (...)

The European Commission publishes discussion paper on abuse of dominance
DG COMP (Brussels)
"Commission publishes discussion paper on abuse of dominance"* On 19 December 2005 the European Commission published a discussion paper on the application of the EC Treaty competition rules on the abuse of a dominant market position (Article 82). The discussion paper is designed to promote a (...)

Procedures

The EFTA Court clarifies the applicable legal regime for private enforcement and margin squeeze (Fjarskipti / Siminn)
Desogus Law Office (Cagliari)
Following a request for an advised opinion made by an Icelandic judge, the EFTA Court has handed down a judgement in the Fjarskipti v Siminn case touching on some procedural and substantive competition law issues. The EFTA Court clarified which are the rules that in the EFTA legal system apply (...)

The EU General Court holds that a duty to procure specific documents might be imposed on the Commission at the request of an undertaking which is the subject to an antitrust investigation under certain circumstances (Intel)
Mircea & Partners (Bucharest)
Access to documents not to be found in the Commission’s possession I. Background The Intel Cases have occupied the international arena of antitrust litigation for the past ten years and a definitive resolution has not been reached yet. The administrative proceeding initiated by the Commission (...)

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues