Short Reads

District Court of Rotterdam dismisses Vodafone claims of abuse of dominance by KPN

District Court of Rotterdam dismisses Vodafone claims of abuse of dominance by KPN

02.10.2017 EU law

On 27 September 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam dismissed claims by Vodafone that KPN abused its dominant position on the market for Virtual Internet Service Provider (VISP) services. In essence, the Court found that KPN did not have a dominant position on this hypothetical market because several companies had developed alternatives to KPN's services.

In 2007, KPN (through its subsidiary Tiscali) started to provide VISP services to Vodafone. These services allowed Vodafone to develop and offer retail internet, television and telephone ("Triple Play") services. In 2009, KPN announced its intention to terminate the VISP services agreement. After Vodafone objected to the termination, the two companies concluded a new agreement in 2011.

According to Vodafone, KPN abused its dominant position by terminating the original agreement and subsequently failing to comply with its obligations under the new VISP services agreement. This resulted in the delay of Vodafone's planned launch of television services through KPN's copper network until the end of 2014. According to Vodafone, this allowed KPN to continue to strengthen its own position on the retail market without having to face competition from Vodafone.

The District Court concluded that KPN did not have a dominant position on the hypothetical market for VISP services. In that regard it considered that KPN was unable to act independently of its competitors, because companies such as Tele2, BBned and Online were capable of developing their own television platforms, either using services provided by competitors of KPN such as Samsung, or by developing such a platform themselves. Vodafone had also argued that KPN's services were the only suitable option available. However, the Court considered that KPN's attractiveness as a service provider in this case was the result of Vodafone's own strategic choices and not because there was a lack of alternatives.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of October 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Court of Justice landmark judgment: Intel's EUR 1.06 billion fine is sent back to the General Court
  2. Court of Justice upholds fine imposed on Philips and LG in the cathode ray tubes cartel
  3. Court of Justice clarifies that a change from sole to joint control requires EU clearance only if the joint venture is "full-function"
  4. Court of Justice provides guidance on examining excessive prices as abuse of a dominant position
  5. Curaçao Competition Act entered into force on 1 September 2017


Related news

16.03.2018 BE law
(Micro)plastics: EU-restrictie op komst?

Articles - Lees hier meer over de groeiende aandacht voor microplastics, die meer en meer in producten en levensmiddelen opduiken. De Europese instellingen hebben de microplastics in het vizier vanwege hun mogelijke impact op het marien milieu en de menselijke gezondheid. Ze denken na over beperkingen op microplastics. Volgen ook in België  bindende maatregelen?

Read more

01.03.2018 EU law
ACM publishes key priorities for 2018 and 2019

Short Reads - On 13 February 2018, the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) highlighted the key priorities it will pursue in 2018 and 2019. It will focus on the digital economy, making the energy market greener, prices of prescription drugs and competition in the port sector. Interested parties were invited to share their comments on the priorities and multiple statements online.

Read more

14.03.2018 EU law
The Court of Justice of the European Union Rules that Intra-EU Investment Arbitration is Incompatible with EU Law: Reflections and Consequences for the Energy Charter Treaty

Articles - On the 6th of March 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held in a case between the Slovak Republic and Achmea (Case C-284/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158) that investment arbitration on the basis of the Netherlands-Slovakia Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) is incompatible with EU law, in particular Arts. 267 and 344 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 

Read more

27.02.2018 BE law
Kleinhandelsbeleid getoetst aan Dienstenrichtlijn

Articles - Het Hof van Justitie heeft in een recent arrest de Dienstenrichtlijn van toepassing verklaard op "detailhandel". Dit arrest heeft belangrijke gevolgen voor het lokale kleinhandelsbeleid. Zo zal een gemeente of een provincie die de toegang tot of de uitoefening van een dienstenactiviteit beperkt, afdoende moeten motiveren waarom die belemmering verstaanbaar is met de Dienstenrichtlijn. Het bestuur moet dan ook waakzamer dan ooit zijn wil het een wettig kleinhandelsbeleid voeren. 

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring