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

02.04.2020 NL law
ACM played high stakes and lost: no more fixed network access regulation

Short Reads - The ACM’s failure to meet the requisite standard of proof has led to the fixed networks of Dutch telecom providers KPN and VodafoneZiggo being free from access regulation. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate the existence of collective dominance, and that KPN and VodafoneZiggo would tacitly coordinate their behaviour absent regulation.

Read more

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
Claims assigned to a litigation vehicle: who needs to prove what?

Short Reads - Two recent decisions from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal have confirmed that litigation vehicles cannot come empty-handed to the court, and should provide documentation regarding the assignments of claims they submit. The Dutch legal system allows companies and individuals to assign their claims to a “litigation vehicle” or “claims vehicle” that bundles those claims into a single action. In its decisions of 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is up to litigation vehicles to prove that the assignments can be invoked against the debtor. 

Read more

10.03.2020 NL law
De AVG staat niet in de weg aan de verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een toezichthouder tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek

Short Reads - Bedrijven die met toezicht worden geconfronteerd, zijn gehouden op verzoek van een toezichthouder in beginsel alle informatie te verstrekken. Met de komst van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) is in de praktijk de vraag opgekomen of een toezichthouder bevoegd is om persoonsgegevens die onderdeel uitmaken van de gevraagde informatie te verwerken.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
EU competition policy agenda: full to the brim

Short Reads - The European Commission’s competition policy agenda stretches to 2024 and contains plans for many new or revised rules and guidelines. Recent publications, such as the New Industrial Strategy for Europe, shed more light on the Commission’s initiatives and their possible impact on parties from both inside and outside the European Union (EU). These new initiatives include temporary state aid rules to address the effects of the Corona crisis, consultations on the Block Exemption Regulations, and new measures in respect of (primarily) third-country companies.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

Short Reads - Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring