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

06.02.2020 NL law
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

Read more

06.02.2020 NL law
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

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