Résultats de la recherche

7 Oct 2020 B

The Brussels Court of Appeal partially annuls a decision imposing a record fine on a telecommunication company for margin squeeze (Proximus)

Peter L’Ecluse, Valerie Lefever • October 2020

On 7 October 2020, the Markets Court of the Brussels Court of Appeal (Marktenhof / Cour des marchés) (the Markets Court) partially annulled the decision of 26 May 2009 (the 2009 Decision), for lack of admissible evidence, by which the Belgian Competition Authority (Belgische (...)

17 Sep 2020 B

Regulated prices & energy: an overview of EU and national case law

Jean-Paul Tran Thiet, Alexandra Sieffert-Xuriguera • Regulated prices & Energy

This Special Issue provides an overview of the main developments related to Regulation and Competition in the Energy sector from 2002 to September 2020. As the concept of “Regulation” has a very broad and sometimes ambiguous meaning, many authors have tried to define it. One of the most popular (...)

9 Sep 2020 B

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)

Nicolas Petit • September 2020

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 (...)

9 Sep 2020 B

The EU Court of Justice Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe recommends the Bronner legal test to be limited to ’refusals to make available’ (Slovak Telekom / Deutsche Telekom)

Simon Troch, Cédric Nys • September 2020

Advocate General (‘AG’) Saugmandsgaard Øe recommends the European Court of Justice (‘ECJ’) to (i) rule that the test included in the Bronner Judgment – including the indispensability requirement – should only be applied in specific circumstances (i.e., in case of ‘refusals to make available’), and (...)

30 Jun 2020 B

The EFTA Surveillance Authority fines a telecom EUR 111 million for abuse of dominance in the Norwegian market for residential mobile broadband services on tablets and laptops (Telenor)

EFTA Surveillance Authority • June 2020

ESA fines Telenor EUR 112 million for anticompetitive practices* Following an in-depth investigation, the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) concludes that Telenor abused its market dominance by a pricing strategy that resulted in rivals making a loss when selling residential mobile broadband (...)

29 juin 2020 R

Abus d’éviction : L’Autorité de surveillance de l’Association européenne de libre-échange sanctionne l’opérateur historique du secteur des télécommunications norvégiennes pour une stratégie de ciseau tarifaire dans le domaine des services à haut débit autonome (Telenor)

Frédéric Marty • N° 4-2020 • pp. 132-133

L’Autorité de Surveillance AELE a sanctionné le 29 juin 2020 l’opérateur historique des télécommunications norvégiennes à une amende de près de 112 millions d’euros pour avoir mis en œuvre une stratégie de compression des marges à l’encontre de ses concurrents sur le marché aval des services à haut débit (...)

10 juin 2020 R

Barrières à l’entrée : La Cour de cassation confirme l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de Paris et la décision de l’Autorité sanctionnant trois pratiques d’éviction pour l’accès au site de la Tour Eiffel (TDF)

Alain Ronzano • N° 3-2020

À la faveur d’un arrêt rendu le 10 juin 2020, la Chambre commerciale de la Cour de cassation, statuant dans une formation rendant des arrêts non spécialement motivés, a rejeté le pourvoi introduit par TDF à l’encontre de l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de Paris en date du 12 octobre 2017, qui avait confirmé en (...)

10 juin 2020 R

Abus d’exclusion : La Cour de cassation rejette un pourvoi contre un arrêt de la Cour d’appel de Paris ayant validé la sanction, par l’Autorité de la concurrence, d’une entreprise pour avoir transmis tardivement et partiellement des informations indispensables pour répondre à des appels d’offres et pour avoir mis en place une tarification anticoncurrentielle (TDF)

Anne Wachsmann, Nicolas Zacharie • N° 3-2020 • p. 106

La Cour de cassation a rejeté, par un arrêt en date du 10 juin 2020, un pourvoi contre l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel de Paris (la Cour d’appel) qui avait elle-même confirmé, par un arrêt en date du 12 octobre 2017, la décision n° 15-D-10 du 11 juin 2015 par laquelle l’Autorité de la concurrence avait (...)

12 Mar 2020 B

The Ankara Administrative Court reassesses the Competition Authority’s decision on price squeezing allegations in the telecommunications sector (Türk Telekom / TTNET)

Gönenç Gürkaynak, Ceren Özkanlı Samlı • March 2020

Background In 2012, the Board launched a full-fledged investigation against Türk Telekom and TTNET upon the complaints of certain Internet service providers (“ISP”), alleging that Türk Telekom and TTNET had abused their dominant positions in the wholesale and retail markets for fixed broadband (...)

20 Feb 2020 B

The Canadian Competition Authority receives a complaint about abuse of dominance in the internet services market (Teksavvy / Bell / Rogers)

Michael I. Binetti • February 2020

TekSavvy Claims That Bell And Rogers Abuse Their Dominant Position For Internet Services* In a public version of its complaint to the Canadian Competition Commissioner (see below), Internet re-seller TekSavvy says that Bell Canada and Rogers Communications Canada have been abusing their (...)

31 Jan 2020 eB

2020 Competition Case Law Digest - A Synthesis of EU, US and National Leading Cases Margin Squeeze

Linda Gratz, Theon van Dijk

67 Margin Squeeze: Recent Developments in EU and National Case Law theon V An d ijk the netherlands Authority for Consumers and markets (the hague) lind A g rAtz e.CA economics (Berlin) gratz@e-ca.com i. introduction dominant undertakings, which are active in upstream and downstream markets, (...)

31 Jan 2020 eB

2020 Competition Case Law Digest - A Synthesis of EU, US and National Leading Cases As Efficient Competitor Test

Peter Davis

79 As Efficient Competitor Test: An Overview of EU and National Case Law Peter d AV is* Cornerstone Research (London) pdavis@cornerstone.com I. Introduction Determining the appropriate standards to apply in Article 102 cases involving allegedly exclusionary conduct by a dominant firm continues (...)

31 Jan 2020 eB

2020 Competition Case Law Digest - A Synthesis of EU, US and National Leading Cases Price Abuses

Sean Ennis

97 Price Abuses: An Overview of EU and National Case Law seAn e nnis University of east Anglia s.ennis@uea.ac.uk i. introduction * Allegations of pricing abuses have tested the boundaries of competition law for more than a century and remain an important activity for many competition (...)

17 janv. 2020 R

Maroc : L’Agence Nationale de Réglementation des Télécommunications du Maroc rend sa première décision de condamnation, sous l’égide de la nouvelle loi sur la concurrence, et sanctionne fortement un opérateur historique pour abus de position dominante (Maroc Telecom)

Michel Ponsard, Emilie Buhé • N° 2-2020 • pp. 236-239

Dans une décision en date du 17 janvier 2020, l’autorité de régulation des télécommunications marocaine, l’ANRT, a infligé une très importante sanction de 3 milliards et 300 millions de dirhams (environ 310 millions d’euros) à l’opérateur historique Itissalat-Al-Magrib (ci-après “Maroc Telecom”) pour avoir (...)

9 Dec 2019 B

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court confirms and defines margin squeeze as a particular form of abusive pricing strategy in the telecommunication market (Swisscom)

Marcel Meinhardt, Suzan Hacisalihzade • December 2019

Federal Supreme Court examines margin squeeze under Swiss competition law* Introduction On 9 December 2019 the Federal Supreme Court confirmed that Swisscom AG and Swisscom (Schweiz) AG (together, Swisscom) had abused its dominant position by charging abusive prices for wholesale broadband (...)

31 Oct 2019 B

The UK Court of Appeal clarifies principles governing competition damages and reiterates that judges must base their decisions on the evidence before them by exclusively focusing on the loss of the claimant (BritNed / ABB)

Cento Veljanovski • October 2019

The Court of Appeal in BritNed v ABB [2019] EWCA Civ 1840 has again had to clarify the principles governing competition damages. It reaffirmed the English High Court’s rejection of the claimant’s approach to damages but took issue with the trial judge’s position that damages should err on the side (...)

31 Oct 2019 B

The UK Court of Appeal hands down a follow-on damages claim against a power cable cartel member (BritNed / ABB)

Piet-Hein Eijssen, Peter Willis • October 2019

On 31 October 2019, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales ("Court") handed down a significant judgment in relation to BritNed’s follow-on damages claim against a power cable cartel member, ABB. The Court allowed ABB’s cross-appeal in relation to cartel savings, finding that the High Court of (...)

31 Oct 2019 B

The UK Court of Appeal slashes a cartel follow-on damages award and emphasises claimants’ burden to prove losses in a claim brought by power cable manufacturers for market-sharing and customer allocating (BritNed / ABB)

Max Strasberg, Euan Burrows, James Levy • October 2019

BritNed Development Limited ("BritNed") brought a claim against ABB arising from the European Commission’s 2014 power cables cartel decision. In October 2018, the High Court found that there had been no overcharge but awarded damages for "baked-in inefficiencies" and "cartel savings" plus simple (...)

4 Sep 2019 eB

Grands arrêts du droit de la concurrence - Volume IV Chapitre 4 Energie
4.1 Prix et tarifs

Chapitre 4 énergie 342 1 p rix et tarifs 1.1 tarifs r?glement?s Ce, 18 mai 2018, engie et anode, n? 413688 et 414656 Le Conseil d'État annule partiellement les sanctions prononcées par le Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel Par une décision très attendue dans le domaine des tarifs réglementés de vente (...)

1 Sep 2019 R

UK: Why not call a margin squeeze a margin squeeze?

Pietro Crocioni • N° 3-2019

At the end of October 2018, Ofcom issued its first abuse of dominance infringement decision and fine under the Competition Act 1998 against Royal Mail. Perhaps surprisingly, Ofcom did not examine the behaviour as either a margin squeeze or a refusal to supply, the types of cases one would (...)

12 Jul 2019 B

The South African Government publishes a notice bringing into force some of the provisions of the amendment act of competition law

Lerisha Naidu, Nxumalo Sphesihle • July 2019

An extensive set of competition law amendments has been in the making since December 2017 when the Competition Amendment Bill (Bill) was initially gazetted for public comment. After robust public participation and commentary, the key features of the Bill have predominantly made their way into (...)

2 May 2019 B

Price Abuses: An overview of EU and national case law

Sean Ennis • Price abuses

Allegations of pricing abuses have tested the boundaries of competition law for more than a century and remain an important activity for many competition authorities and courts. While pricing abuses constituted key parts of some early antitrust case, many commentators have urged that they are (...)

1 May 2019 R

USA/EU: The convergence and specifics of EU competition law and American antitrust law regarding the prohibition of price scissors as constitutive of abuse of dominance

Kane Abry-Diaw de Baye • N° 2-2019

In this paper, the author reports on how the European and American Competition Authorities apprehend margin squeeze, viz. the fact for dominant undertakings operating simultaneously as vertically-integrated entities and as downstream market participants to increase wholesale prices by reducing (...)

4 Apr 2019 B

As Efficient Competitor Test: An overview of EU and national case law

Peter Davis • As Efficient Competitor test

Determining the appropriate standards to apply in Article 102 cases involving allegedly exclusionary conduct by a dominant firm continues to provide substantial room for debate between and within the legal and economic communities. However, the nature of the debate has progressed substantially (...)

9 Oct 2018 B

The UK High Court of Justice rejects methodology for estimating overcharges on cables based on economic evidence (BritNed / ABB)

Pinar Bagci • October 2018

ABSTRACT In the first cartel overcharge claim brought in the English High Court, the claimant’s methodology for estimating ABB overcharges on the BritNed cable was comprehensively rejected. The Court concluded that the claimant’s econometric analysis was insufficiently grounded in facts and (...)

9 Oct 2018 B

The UK High Court of Justice rejects econometrics analysis in a cartel damage case for being too complex (BritNed / ABB)

Cento Veljanovski • October 2018

BritNed Development Ltd v. ABB AB and ABB Ltd [2018] EWHC 2616 (Ch). (“BritNed”) is the first English cartel damage judgment and the first to consider an econometric approach to calculating overcharges. The court rejected the claimant’s econometric analysis as ‘too complex’ and “unspecific”. Here (...)

27 juin 2018 R

Eviction : L’Autorité de la concurrence prononce un non-lieu à propos des pratiques mises en œuvre par des sociétés du secteur informatique sur les marchés de la maintenance des matériels informatiques (Econocom)

Alain Ronzano • N° 3-2018

Le 28 juin 2018, l’Autorité de la concurrence a mis en ligne une décision n° 18-D-10 du 27 juin 2018 au terme de laquelle elle prononce un non-lieu à poursuivre la procédure ouverte par la saisine du groupe Econocom en ce qui concerne des pratiques mises en œuvre par les sociétés IBM, HP et Oracle (...)

27 Jun 2018 B

The French Competition Authority rejects a complaint about abuse of dominance in the sector of IT maintenance (Econocom)

Laurence Bary • June 2018

On 27 June 2018, the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) rejected a complaint filed by French company Econocom, active in the maintenance of servers and storage solutions, against the main manufacturers of IT hardware: IBM, Hewlett Packard (“HP”) and Oracle. This decision was issued in a peculiar (...)

30 May 2018 B

The EFTA Court clarifies the applicable legal regime for private enforcement and margin squeeze (Fjarskipti / Siminn)

Michele Giannino • May 2018

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 (...)

5 Apr 2018 B

Margin squeeze: Recent developments in EU and national case law

Linda Gratz, Theon van Dijk • Margin squeeze

Dominant undertakings, which are active in upstream and downstream markets, can squeeze margins of their downstream competitors by setting a relatively high price upstream (the input costs of their downstream competitors) and a relatively low price downstream. As margin squeeze can lead to (...)

5 avr. 2018 R

Abus de position dominante : La Cour de cassation valide en tous points l’approche de la Cour d’appel de Paris dans l’affaire de la commercialisation d’offres d’abondance « on net » (SFR / Orange)

Alain Ronzano • N° 3-2018

À la faveur d’un arrêt rendu le 5 avril 2018, la Chambre commerciale de la Cour de cassation est venue rejeter l’ensemble des pourvois formés respectivement par la société SFR et la société Orange contre l’arrêt rendu par la Cour d’appel de Paris du 19 mai 2016 dans l’affaire de la commercialisation (...)

5 févr. 2018 R

Espagne : La Cour suprême espagnole confirme l’annulation de la décision de l’Autorité de la concurrence espagnole sanctionnant l’opérateur postal public pour un abus de position dominante consistant en une compression des marges des opérateurs alternatifs (Correos)

Rafael Allendesalazar • N° 2-2018 • pp. 198-199

Par un arrêt du 5 février 2018, la Cour suprême espagnole a confirmé l’arrêt de l’Audiencia Nacional du 1er juillet 2015 (recours nº 118/2014) qui annula la décision de l’Autorité de la concurrence (ci-après “CNMC”) du 21 janvier 2014 (affaire S/0373/11, Correos 2) qui avait sanctionné Correos, l’opérateur (...)

5 Feb 2018 B

The Spanish Supreme Court rejects the allegations of abuse of dominance by a postal incumbent for lack of evidence (Correos)

Pedro Callol, Manuel Canadas Bouwen, Jorge Manzarbeitia, Laura Moya, Enrique Fayos • February 2018

In 2014, UNIPOST, S.A. (Unipost) filed a complaint before the NMCC against Sociedad Estatal de Correos y Telegrafos, S.A., (Correos) denouncing that Correos was able to offer discounts to large customers, well above the discounts offered by Unipost and other competitors for similar services, (...)

13 Dec 2017 B

The Italian Competition Authority fines several telecom companies for margin squeeze (Telecom Italia / Vodafone)

Tim Kasten • December 2017

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 (...)

13 Dec 2017 B

The Italian Competition Authority sanctions telecom companies for two different cases of abuse of dominance in the Italian market of SMS bulk (Telecom Italia / Vodafone)

Carlotta Ienca • December 2017

On 13 December 2017, the Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”) fined Vodafone S.p.A. (“Vodafone”) and Telecom Italia S.p.A. (“Telecom”) for two different abuses of dominant position in the Italian market of SMS bulk, in breach of Article 102 TFUE. More specifically, the ICA has found two distinct (...)

12 oct. 2017 R

Abus d’éviction : La Cour d’appel de Paris confirme la décision par laquelle l’Autorité de la concurrence a sanctionné des pratiques d’éviction du site de la Tour Eiffel (TDF)

Laurent Binet • N° 1-2018 • pp. 95-96

La Cour d’appel de Paris (“la Cour”) a confirmé, par un arrêt en date du 12 octobre 2017, la décision n° 15-D-10 du 11 juin 2015 par laquelle l’Autorité de la concurrence avait sanctionné la société Télédiffusion de France (“TDF”) à hauteur de 5,6 millions d’euros pour avoir faussé la concurrence sur le (...)

15 sept. 2017 R

Etats-Unis : Le Tribunal du district Sud de l’Iowa rejette une allégation de tentative de monopolisation, fondée sur des pratiques de compression de marges, dans le secteur des sodas (Mahaska Bottling v. PepsiCo)

Jean-Christophe Roda • N° 1-2018 • pp. 211-214

Par une décision du 15 septembre 2017, le Tribunal fédéral du district Sud de l’Iowa était amené à se prononcer sur une allégation de tentative de monopolisation, elle-même basée sur des pratiques tarifaires mises en œuvre par un des géants du secteur des sodas, l’entreprise PepsiCo. La plaignante, un (...)

8 Jun 2017 B

The Spanish Competition Authority fines a telecommunication company for abuse of dominance (Nokia)

Pedro Callol • June 2017

The NMCC has fined €1.74 million on Nokia Solutions and Networks Spain, S.L. (Nokia). The NMCC considered that Nokia abused its dominant position by engaging in margin squeeze practices when the State owned railway manager Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF) tendered the (...)

29 Nov 2016 B

The OECD holds a roundtable on price discrimination

OECD • November 2016

In recent years the scope for near perfect price discrimination, particularly in the digital economy, appears to have grown. This raises a question over how those jurisdictions in which exploitative price discrimination is an offence will respond. In contrast, the risk of price discrimination (...)

22 nov. 2016 R

Transport ferroviaire de marchandises : La Cour de cassation censure l’approche excessivement restrictive de la circonstance aggravante de récidive adoptée par la Cour d’appel de Paris, revient sur la réformation de la décision de l’Autorité tirée de l’absence d’abus de position dominante tenant à une pratique de prix d’éviction et renvoie l’affaire devant la Cour d’appel de Paris autrement composée (SNCF/ECR)

Alain Ronzano • N° 1-2017

À la faveur d’un arrêt rendu le 22 novembre 2016, la Chambre commerciale de la Cour de cassation est venue invalider sur deux points essentiels l’arrêt rendu le 6 novembre 2014 dans l’affaire du fret ferroviaire aux termes duquel la Cour d’appel de Paris avait réformé partiellement la décision n° (...)

20 Oct 2016 B

The 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)

Bill Batchelor • October 2016

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 (...)

20 oct. 2016 R

Rabais d’exclusivité : L’avocat général Wahl suggère à la Cour de justice de l’Union Européenne d’exiger que l’atteinte susceptible d’être portée à la concurrence soit appréciée, comme pour les rabais fidélisant, en considération de l’ensemble des circonstances de l’affaire, afin de s’assurer que ces rabais ont produit, selon toute probabilité, un effet d’éviction de la concurrence (Intel)

Alain Ronzano • N° 1-2017

C’est peu de dire que les conclusions de l’avocat général Nils Wahl dans l’affaire C-413/14 (Intel contre Commission européenne) étaient attendues. Au-delà même du fait que l’affaire concerne la plus forte amende jamais imposée par la Commission à une seule entreprise — 1,060 milliard d’euros —, le (...)

20 Oct 2016 B

The EU Advocate General Wahl opts for a more effects-based approach on rebates and proposes annulment of the EU General Court’s judgement (Intel)

Kyriakos Fountoukakos, André Pretorius, Sergio Sorinas, Kristien Geeurickx • October 2016

In Intel’s appeal against the General Court’s judgement of June 2014 (which upheld the Commission’s decision that Intel abused its dominant position by virtue of operating exclusivity rebate schemes – see here for our e-bulletin on the judgment), Advocate General Wahl recommends that the Court of (...)

19 mai 2016 R

Ciseau tarifaire : La Cour d’appel de Paris réduit les sanctions pécuniaires infligées à des opérateurs téléphoniques pour différenciation tarifaire abusive entre les appels on-net et off-net (Orange et SFR)

Anne-Lise Sibony • Nº 3-2016 • pp. 74-79

Le droit de l’abus de position dominante doit décidément beaucoup à l’ouverture à la concurrence dans le secteur des télécoms. Cette fois, il s’agit de pratiques qui ont eu lieu en France métropolitaine, entre 2005 et 2011. À l’époque, les opérateurs de téléphonie mobile offraient des abonnements (...)

6 Apr 2016 B

The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf rejects an appeal lodged by the German incumbent postal services operator, against a decision of the Federal Cartel Office in an abuse of dominance case (Deutsche Post)

Tim Kasten • April 2016

In a recently published decision of 6 April 2016, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (“Court”) rejected an appeal lodged by Deutsche Post AG (“DPAG”), Germany’s incumbent postal services operator, against a decision of the German Federal Cartel Office (“FCO”). By decision of 2 July 2015, the FCO (...)

7 Jan 2016 B

Art. 267 TFEU preliminary rulings: An overview of EU and national case law

Barry J. Rodger • Preliminary ruling (Art. 267 TFEU)

1. Introduction 1.1 Background to the Preliminary Ruling Procedure Article 267 TFEU (ex Art 234 EC) facilitates a dialogue between the national courts and the CJEU (hereinafter referred to as ’the Court’) in order to allow national courts to seek guidance on the appropriate interpretation of EU (...)

31 Dec 2015 B

The Portuguese Competition Authority fines an association of pharmacists for abuse of dominance on the pharmacies’ commercial data market (ANF)

Portuguese Competition Authority • December 2015

The Portuguese Competition Authority fined ANF Group for abusing its dominant position* The Portuguese Competition Authority (PCA) has imposed fines of € 10.340.000 on ANF (Associação Nacional das Farmácias) and three companies of the ANF Group (Farminveste – S.G.P.S., S.A., Farminveste – (...)

6 Oct 2015 B

The EU Court of Justice rules on retroactive loyalty rebates (Post Danmark II)

Frederic Depoortere, Ingrid Vandenborre, Simon Baxter • October 2015

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 (...)

6 Oct 2015 B

The EU Court of Justice rules on whether a retroactive loyalty rebates scheme is liable to have an exclusionary effect (Post Danmark II)

Miguel Rato, Stephen Mavroghenis, Trevor Soames • October 2015

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 (...)

1 Jul 2015 B

The Spanish High Court issues landmark judgment on the need to establish foreclosure effects of a margin squeeze (Correos)

Hugo Roldán, Juan Passás • July 2015

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 (...)

total	303
total_found	303
time	0.117

Votre recherche donne 303 résultats Ciseau tarifaire

Debug

Métas associées