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 dom

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

02.10.2017 NL 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

Team

Related news

07.02.2020 BE law
Het finale Belgische ‘nationaal energie- en klimaatplan’ en de Belgische langetermijnstrategie: het geduld van de Commissie op de proef gesteld?

Articles - Op 31 december 2019 diende België, nog net op tijd, zijn definitieve nationaal energie- en klimaatplan (NEKP) in bij de Commissie. Het staat nu al vast dat het Belgische NEKP niet op applaus zal worden onthaald door de Commissie. Verder laat ook de Belgische langetermijnstrategie op zich wachten. Wat zijn de gevolgen?

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

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

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