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

06.05.2021 EU law
Abuse of economic dependence: lessons drawn from the first judgments

Short Reads - On 22 August 2020, the ban on abuse of economic dependence was implemented in Belgium (Article IV.2/1 of the Code of Economic Law). Now that almost a year has passed and the first judgments have been rendered, we assess what first lessons can be drawn from these judgments. The rulings show that the ban is regularly relied upon in court and has lowered the hurdle for plaintiffs to make their case.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more