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

10.10.2018 NL law
Ongevraagd advies Raad van State: normering van geautomatiseerde overheidsbesluitvorming

Short Reads - Op 31 augustus 2018 heeft de Afdeling advisering van de Raad van State (hierna: "Afdeling advisering") een 'Ongevraagd advies over de effecten van de digitalisering voor de rechtsstatelijke verhoudingen' betreffende de positie en de bescherming van de burger tegen een "iOverheid" uitgebracht. Het gebeurt niet vaak dat de Afdeling advisering zo een ongevraagd advies uitbrengt. Dit onderstreept het belang van de voortdurend in ontwikkeling zijnde technologie en digitalisering in relatie tot de verhouding tussen de overheid en de maatschappij.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
UK Court upholds fine against Ping for online sales ban

Short Reads - On 7 September 2018, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) upheld the UK Competition and Market Authority's (CMA) decision fining Ping Europe Limited, a manufacturer of golf clubs, for violating EU and UK competition law by prohibiting two UK retailers from selling Ping golf clubs online. While the CAT reduced the fine from £1.45 million to £1.25 million, it confirmed that outright online sales bans in the context of selective distribution agreements are restrictive of competition by object.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Court of Justice refers case against Infineon in relation to smart card chips cartel back to the General Court

Short Reads - On 26 September 2018, the European Court of Justice partially set aside the judgment of the General Court in the smart card chips cartel case. Infineon had argued that the General Court wrongfully assessed only five out of eleven allegedly unlawful contacts. The Court agreed with Infineon insofar as its argument related to the amount of the fine imposed. Philips had also appealed the General Court judgment but that appeal was dismissed in its entirety meaning that the Court of Justice upheld the European Commission's decision and fine.

Read more

01.10.2018 EU law
Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal annuls mail market analysis decision

Short Reads - On 3 September 2018, the Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) annulled the market analysis decision regarding 24-hour business mail issued by the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) on 27 July 2017. In appeal proceedings filed by PostNL, the CBb ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate that digital mail was not part of the relevant market for 24-hour business mail.

Read more

26.09.2018 EU law
Algemene bepalingen inzake oneerlijke handelspraktijken wijken voor specifiekere regelgeving

Articles - In geval van strijdigheid tussen de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken[1] (en bij uitbreiding de omzettingsbepalingen in Boek VI WER) en andere Europeesrechtelijke voorschriften betreffende specifieke aspecten van oneerlijke handelspraktijken, hebben deze laatste voorrang (zie artikel 3, lid 4 van de Richtlijn Oneerlijke Handelspraktijken). Dat dit tot interessante discussies kan leiden, bleek uit een recent arrest van het Hof van Justitie[2].

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring