The EU Court of Justice AG Saugmandsgaardoe issues opinion finding that a firm without an indispensable infrastructure can nonetheless abuse a dominant position by way of margin squeeze (Slovak Telekom) (Deutsche Telekom)

I share below a quick analysis of the Opinion of Advocate General ("AG") Saugmandsgaardoe in Deutsche Telekom and Slovak Telekom (DT & ST) v Commission (C-152 and 165/19 P). The legal issue at the heart of the case giving rise to the Opinion is the following: can a firm without an indispensable infrastructure nonetheless abuse a dominant position by way of margin squeeze? To this normative question, the AG answers positively. I beg to differ. To be clear, my disagreement is with the AG’s reasoning. It is not about the outcome in this case or others. So here’s the issue. Under the Bronner case law, an antitrust duty to deal arises when a dominant firm controls an indispensable input. The indispensability

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • European University Institute (Florence)

Quotation

Nicolas Petit, The EU Court of Justice AG Saugmandsgaardoe issues opinion finding that a firm without an indispensable infrastructure can nonetheless abuse a dominant position by way of margin squeeze (Slovak Telekom) (Deutsche Telekom), 9 September 2020, e-Competitions September 2020, Art. N° 97618

Visites 78

All issues

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