umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Short Reads

European Court of Justice dismissed Orange Polska’s appeal in abuse of dominance case

European Court of Justice dismissed Orange Polska’s appeal in abuse o

European Court of Justice dismissed Orange Polska’s appeal in abuse of dominance case

01.08.2018 NL law

On 25 July 2018, the European Court of Justice rejected Orange Polska's appeal relating to a European Commission decision finding an abuse of dominance on the Polish wholesale broadband market. The judgment clarifies that the Commission does not have to take into account the actual or likely effects of an infringement when determining the amount of the fine.

In 2011, the Commission found that Orange Polska had abused its dominant position on several Polish telecom markets by proposing unreasonable terms to alternative operators, delaying the process of negotiating agreements and limiting access to its network and to subscriber lines. The appeal brought before the General Court was dismissed in its entirety [see our January 2016 Newsletter]. Orange Polska subsequently lodged an appeal with the Court of Justice.

In its second ground of appeal, Orange Polska submitted that the Commission should have shown the existence of the actual or likely effects of the infringement, as the Commission had taken those effects into account in the assessment of the gravity of the infringement. The Court of Justice ruled that Orange's argument was based on an erroneous reading of the fining decision, as the Commission had not taken the effects of the infringement into account when determining the amount of the fine. Consequently, the Commission did not have to show the existence of those effects.

The Court's ruling is contrary to the Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet, who argued that the Commission is obliged to take into consideration the actual or likely impact of the infringement when calculating the amount of the fine in the case of an abuse of a dominant position. In the Advocate General's view, such an effects-based approach followed from the Court's landmark judgment in Intel. In Intel, the Court ruled that if an undertaking submits that a certain allegedly abusive practice is not capable of restricting competition, the Commission will need to carry out a detailed economic examination of the alleged negative effects on competition before an infringement of Article 102 TFEU can be established [see our October 2017 Newsletter]. The Orange Polska judgment clarifies that this reasoning cannot be applied by analogy to the Commission's determination of the amount of the fine and that the Commission in that context has a discretion not to take into account the actual or likely effects of the infringement.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of August 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. General Court underlines importance of Commission's duty to state reasons
  2. General Court dismisses appeals by investor against power cable cartel fine
  3. Google receives a second record fine of EUR 4.34 billion for imposing restrictions on Android device makers
  4. European Commission issues a new Best Practices Code for State aid control
  5. District Court in the Netherlands rules on limitation periods in CRT case
  6. Court of Appeal in the Netherlands decides to appoint independent economic experts in TenneT v ABB
  7. Belgian Court of Cassation annuls decision prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords

Team

Related news

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
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

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

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more