FOREWORD: ABUSE OF EVICTION - ESSENTIAL FACILITY - AEC TEST - FORM AND EFFECT

What’s in a name? Labels, bright lines and the form v. effect debate in Slovak Telecom

This foreword assesses some economic issues raised by the CJEU’s Slovak Telecom judgment. It analyses the distinction between essential facilities and other exclusionary practices, and explores the implications for the debate between form and effect.

In March 2021 the CJEU issued its judgment in the appeal by Slovak Telecom (“ST”). It concerned a Commission A102 decision finding that ST employed prohibitively high prices and other conduct to obstruct local loop access to rival operators. ST argued that its conduct should be viewed through the lens of the essential facilities case, calculating that application of the Oscar Bronner criteria for assessing abuse would impose a tougher burden on the Commission and make it harder to sustain an abuse finding. The CJEU emphatically rejected ST’s argument and upheld the decision. This comment assesses some of the economic issues raised by the judgment, exploring its implications for the debate between form and effect. How do margin squeeze and essential facilities cases compare? The dispute

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

  • Competition Appeal Tribunal (London)

Quotation

Derek Ridyard, What’s in a name? Labels, bright lines and the form v. effect debate in Slovak Telecom, November 2021, Concurrences N° 4-2021, Art. N° 102816, www.concurrences.com

Visites 469

All reviews