Articles

General Court dismissed Orange Polska's appeal against abuse of dominance decision

General Court dismissed Orange Polska's appeal against abuse of dominance decision

General Court dismissed Orange Polska's appeal against abuse of dominance decision

05.01.2016 NL law

On 17 December 2015, the General Court ("GC") handed down its judgment on appeal, dismissing the actions brought before it by Orange Polska S.A. ("OP", formerly Telekommunikacje Polska ("TP")). OP appealed against a Commission decision from 2011, which imposed a EUR 127.5 million fine on TP for abusing its dominant position on the Polish wholesale broadband market.

TP was the incumbent telecoms operator in Poland. Polish national regulation compelled TP, in view of its significant market power, to grant alternative operators ("AOs") access to its network in order to allow for effective competition on the downstream markets. 

The GC agreed with the Commission that the Polish regulation had not been effective in opening up competition on the wholesale market for broadband internet access. The Commission found that from 2005 until 2009 TP engaged in abusive conduct towards AOs consisting of multiple elements, such as proposing unreasonable terms for access to its wholesale broadband products, delaying the process of negotiating agreements about access terms and limiting access to its network. The abusive conduct was found to constitute a single and continuous infringement of Article 102 TFEU.

OP did not dispute the existence of the infringement but argued on appeal that the Commission erred in calculating the basic amount of the fine. In particular, OP claimed that the Commission did not take account of the varying duration and intensity of the individual elements constituting the infringement in its fine calculation. The GC, however, concluded that the Commission took due account of the differing duration and intensity of the separate elements and did not err by looking at the elements as a whole when assessing the gravity of the infringement. Contrary to OP's claim, the GC also found that the Commission had not taken into account the actual effects of the infringement in assessing its gravity and, consequently, did not have to provide any evidence to this effect.

Furthermore, OP asserted that the Commission failed to take mitigating circumstances into consideration. OP claimed that TP had made investments following an agreement with the national regulator, voluntarily terminated the infringement and offered to make commitments. However, the GC held that the investments were not made with a view to compensating the AOs and end users. It further held that TP did not terminate the infringement immediately after the Commission intervened. Finally, the commitments did not go beyond TP's obligations to cooperate with the Commission. Therefore, none of the foregoing circumstances could justify a fine reduction.

The GC's judgment shows that high fines can be imposed for abuse of a dominant position, even if it concerns non-price abuses. The French competition authority recently also rendered a decision imposing a EUR 350 million fine on Orange for abusing its market dominance in France.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of January 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

10.10.2018 NL law
Ongevraagd advies Raad van State: normering van geautomatiseerde overheidsbesluitvorming

Short Reads - Op 31 augustus 2018 heeft de Afdeling advisering van de Raad van State (hierna: "Afdeling advisering") een 'Ongevraagd advies over de effecten van de digitalisering voor de rechtsstatelijke verhoudingen' betreffende de positie en de bescherming van de burger tegen een "iOverheid" uitgebracht. Het gebeurt niet vaak dat de Afdeling advisering zo een ongevraagd advies uitbrengt. Dit onderstreept het belang van de voortdurend in ontwikkeling zijnde technologie en digitalisering in relatie tot de verhouding tussen de overheid en de maatschappij.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
UK Court upholds fine against Ping for online sales ban

Short Reads - On 7 September 2018, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) upheld the UK Competition and Market Authority's (CMA) decision fining Ping Europe Limited, a manufacturer of golf clubs, for violating EU and UK competition law by prohibiting two UK retailers from selling Ping golf clubs online. While the CAT reduced the fine from £1.45 million to £1.25 million, it confirmed that outright online sales bans in the context of selective distribution agreements are restrictive of competition by object.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Court of Justice refers case against Infineon in relation to smart card chips cartel back to the General Court

Short Reads - On 26 September 2018, the European Court of Justice partially set aside the judgment of the General Court in the smart card chips cartel case. Infineon had argued that the General Court wrongfully assessed only five out of eleven allegedly unlawful contacts. The Court agreed with Infineon insofar as its argument related to the amount of the fine imposed. Philips had also appealed the General Court judgment but that appeal was dismissed in its entirety meaning that the Court of Justice upheld the European Commission's decision and fine.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal annuls mail market analysis decision

Short Reads - On 3 September 2018, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) annulled the market analysis decision regarding 24-hour business mail issued by the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) on 27 July 2017. In appeal proceedings filed by PostNL, the CBb ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate that digital mail was not part of the relevant market for 24-hour business mail.

Read more

26.09.2018 EU law
Algemene bepalingen inzake oneerlijke handelspraktijken wijken voor specifiekere regelgeving

Articles - In geval van strijdigheid tussen de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken[1] (en bij uitbreiding de omzettingsbepalingen in Boek VI WER) en andere Europeesrechtelijke voorschriften betreffende specifieke aspecten van oneerlijke handelspraktijken, hebben deze laatste voorrang (zie artikel 3, lid 4 van de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken). Dat dit tot interessante discussies kan leiden, bleek uit een recent arrest van het Hof van Justitie[2].

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