CASE COMMENTS : UNILATERAL PRACTICES – MARGIN SQUEEZE – INDISPENSIBLE CHARACTER OF INTERMEDIARY SERVICES – EXCLUSIONARY EFFECTS

Margin squeeze: The Court of Justice rules that an abuse of a dominant position in the form of margin squeeze may be constituted even where intermediary services do not constitute an indispensible input for new entrants on the downstream market, provided potential exclusionary effect is established (Konkurrensverket/TeliaSonera)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. CJEU, 17 February 2011, TeliaSonera, aff. C-52/09 Shortly after delivering its first judgment on margin squeeze abuse in the Deutsche Telekom case (CJEU, 14 October 2010, Case C-280/08 P, ConcurrencesNo. 1 2011, this column, pp. 91-95.), the Court was asked to clarify its case law in this area. The opportunity to do so was given to it by the Swedish competition court, which had referred no less than ten questions for a preliminary ruling in a case between the incumbent telecommunications operator, now TeliaSonera, and the Swedish Competition Authority. In the main proceedings, the question was whether or not that operator may have abused its dominant

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

  • Catholic University of Louvain

Quotation

Anne-Lise Sibony, Margin squeeze: The Court of Justice rules that an abuse of a dominant position in the form of margin squeeze may be constituted even where intermediary services do not constitute an indispensible input for new entrants on the downstream market, provided potential exclusionary effect is established (Konkurrensverket/TeliaSonera), 17 February 2011, Concurrences N° 2-2011, Art. N° 35666, pp. 108-110

Visites 2267

All reviews