Reports of Cases

2010 I-09555

Subject-matter

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 April 2008 in Case T-271/03 Deutsche Telekom v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/707/EC of 21 May 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 EC (Case COMP/C-1/37.451, 37.578, 37.579 – Deutsche Telekom AG) (OJ 2003 L 263, p. 9), and, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant – Abuse of a dominant position – Charges for access to the fixed-line telecommunications network in Germany – Abusive nature of pricing practices of a dominant undertaking charging its competitors tariffs for wholesale access to the local loop that are higher than the prices it charges for retail access to the local network

Systematic classification scheme

Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 10 : paragraphs 45, 91
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 81 : paragraphs 45, 81, 82
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 82 : paragraphs 8, 9, 26, 28 - 32, 35, 45, 46, 48, 55, 77, 78, 80 - 82, 84, 90 - 92, 109, 127, 140, 148, 155, 158 - 161, 163, 167, 169, 170, 173, 174, 176, 177, 179 - 181, 183, 184, 186, 195, 197, 198, 202, 203, 223 - 225, 227, 240, 250, 251, 253, 254, 275
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 82 -L2LA : paragraph 172
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 225 : paragraphs 24, 53
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 226 : paragraphs 47, 128
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 253 : paragraphs 130, 131, 133
• TFEU - Protocol No 3 -A36 : paragraphs 135, 228
• TFEU - Protocol No 3 -A53L1 : paragraphs 135, 228
• TFEU - Protocol No 3 -A58L1 : paragraphs 24, 53
• Regulation 17/62 : paragraph 294
• Regulation 17/62 -A15P2 : paragraphs 128, 133, 271
• Regulation 17/62 -A15P2L1 : paragraph 124
• General Court - Rules of Procedure (1991) -A81 : paragraphs 135, 228
• Court of Justice - Rules of Procedure (1991) -A112P1LC : paragraph 24
• Court of Justice - Rules of Procedure (1991) -A113P2 : paragraph 34
• Directive 96/19 : paragraph 145
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -6/73 : paragraph 275
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -40/73 : paragraphs 82, 278
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -85/76 : paragraph 170
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -13/77 : paragraph 45
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -100/80 : paragraphs 274, 294
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/81 : paragraphs 83, 124, 174, 175, 177
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -96/82 : paragraph 124
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -240/82 : paragraph 81
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -41/83 : paragraph 81
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -123/83 : paragraph 84
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -62/86 : paragraphs 174, 177, 198, 199, 275
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -18/88 : paragraph 230
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -136/92 : paragraph 34
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -96/94 : paragraph 45
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -359/95 : paragraph 80
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -367/95 : paragraph 131
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -259/96 : paragraph 136
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -344/98 : paragraph 90
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -352/98 : paragraph 24
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -449/98 : paragraph 136
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -17/99 : paragraph 130
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -321/99 : paragraph 25
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -462/99 : paragraph 230
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -233/00 : paragraph 47
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -76/01 : paragraph 24
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -198/01 : paragraphs 81, 82, 279
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -189/02 : paragraphs 273, 274
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -327/03 : paragraph 230
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -95/04 : paragraphs 53, 173 - 175, 177
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -308/04 : paragraph 272
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -407/04 : paragraphs 272, 273, 277
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -68/05 : paragraph 34
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -311/05 : paragraph 135
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -55/06 : paragraph 49
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -120/06 : paragraph 123
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -268/06 : paragraph 45
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -413/06 : paragraph 131
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -468/06 : paragraph 180
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -49/07 : paragraph 230
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -202/07 : paragraphs 170, 176, 182, 198
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/07 : paragraph 271
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -431/07 : paragraph 108
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -534/07 : paragraph 273
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -564/08 : paragraph 34

Operative part

• Confirms : General Court - Judgment T -271/03

Opinion

• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 81 : point 15
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 82 : points 1, 13, 15, 19 - 21, 23, 24, 27, 36, 38, 40, 41, 44 - 46, 48 - 50, 52, 55, 57, 64, 72
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 83 : point 19
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 85 : point 19
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 86 -P3 : point 19
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 253 : points 38, 39, 44
  
• Regulation 17/62 : points 13, 19, 36
  
• Regulation 17/62 -A15P2 : points 38 - 40, 66
  
• Decision 88/518 : point 49
  
• Directive 90/388 : points 14, 15
  
• Directive 96/19 : point 57
  
• Secondary Legislation - Document published in the OJ C series- 31998Y0114(01) -PT1LA : point 66
  
• Secondary Legislation - Document published in the OJ C series- 31998Y0822(01) : points 19, 21, 25
  
• Regulation 2887/2000 : points 14, 15
  
• Decision 2001/892 : point 72
  
• Regulation 1/2003 : points 13, 19
  
• Decision 2003/707 : point 1
  
• Commission - Other Acts - 52002XC0711(02) : point 19
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -6/72 : point 15
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -40/73 : point 13
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -85/76 : point 15
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -119/77 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/81 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -96/82 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -123/83 : point 13
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -62/86 : point 49
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -24/95 : point 36
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -359/95 : point 13
  
• General Court - Judgment T -5/97 : point 44
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -344/98 : point 13
  
• General Court - Judgment T -219/99 : point 64
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -198/01 : point 13
  
• General Court - Judgment T -203/01 : point 64
  
• General Court - Judgment T -259/02 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -131/03 : point 10
  
• General Court - Judgment T -271/03 : point 1
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -95/04 : point 64
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -55/06 : point 15
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -468/06 : point 13
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -52/09 : point 44
  

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

• 23/06/2008

Date of the Opinion

• 22/04/2010

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

14/10/2010

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 223 from 30.08.2008, p.31

Judgment: OJ C 346 from 18.12.2010, p.4

Name of the parties

Deutsche Telekom v Commission

Notes on Academic Writings

1. Arhel, Pierre: Activité des juridictions communautaires en droit de la concurrence (avril-mai 2010), Petites affiches. La Loi / Le Quotidien juridique 2010 nº 142 p.8 (FR)
2. Idot, Laurence: Abus de position dominante, secteur régulé et ciseau tarifaire - En rejetant le pourvoi dans l'affaire Deutsche Telekom, la Cour confirme qu'une pratique de ciseau tarifaire peut être jugée abusive, même si l'un des deux tarifs a été approuvé par une autorité sectorielle, Europe 2010 Décembre Comm. nº 12 p.31-32 (FR)
3. Rädler, Peter: Die Preis - Kosten Schere im Kartell - und Regulierungsrecht, Computer und Recht 2010 nº 6 p.780-787 (DE)
4. Reysen, Marc: The Deutsche Telekom AG case - Don't margin squeeze your competitors, Competition Law Insight 2011 Vol. 10 Issue 2 p.11-12 (EN)
5. Dunne, Niamh: Margin squeeze: From broken regulation to legal uncertainty, The Cambridge Law Journal 2011 Vol. 70 Part 1 p.34-37 (EN)
6. Bay, Matteo ; De Stefano, Gianni: ECJ Rules on Margin Squeeze Appeal, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 2011 Vol. 2 Nº 2 p.128-130 (EN)
7. Van Veen, Christiaan: De zaak Deutsche Telekom: Het Hof geeft duidelijkheid over marge-uitholling, Actualiteiten mededingingsrecht 2011 p.18-24 (NL)
8. Prieto, Catherine ; Roda, Jean-Christophe: Concurrence. Mise en oeuvre des articles 101 et 102 TFUE, Journal du droit international 2011 p.553-564 (FR)
9. Philippe, Jérôme ; Trabucchi, Maria: Jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne. Concurrence, Gazette du Palais 2011 nº 126-127 Jur. p.20-21 (FR)
10. Šamánek Jan, Brouček Milan: Aplikace doktriny stlatovani marii Soudnim dvorem EU: piipad Deutsche Telekom, Anti Trust 2011 nº 2 p.50-57 (CS)
11. Stamelos, Charalampos: Evropaion Politeia 2011 p.131-132 (EL)
12. Kirilov, Hristo: "Tsenovata presa" kato zloupotreba s gospodstvashto polozhenie na reguliranite pazari na dalekosaobshtitelni uslugi, Evropeyski praven pregled 2011 nº 1 p.117-144 (BG)
13. Schettino, Antonello: Il margin squeeze alla luce della recente giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea, Il diritto dell'Unione Europea 2013 p.145-167 (IT)
14. Sibony, Anne-Lise: Ciseau tarifaire - Différenciation tarifaire abusive - Discrimination - Augmentation des coûts des concurrents : La Cour d'appel de Paris réduit les sanctions pécuniaires infligées à des opérateurs téléphoniques pour différenciation tarifaire abusive entre les appels on-net et off-net, Concurrences : revue des droits de la concurrence 2016 nº 3 p.74-79 (FR)
15. Mitrovič, Dušan: Institut cenovnih skarij — kazalkik raslik med cilji konkurenčnega prava v ZDA in EU, Podjetje in delo 2019 nº XLV p.256-27900-00 (SL)
16. Mitrovič, Dušan: Institut cenovnih škarij – kazalnik razlik med cilji konkurenčnega prava v ZDA in EU, Podjetje in delo 2019 nº KLV p.256-279 (SL)

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Information not available

Subject-matter

• Competition
  
• - Dominant position
  

Provisions of national law referred to

Information not available

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

• Actions for annulment
  
• Appeal brought against a sanction
  
• Appeals : dismissal on grounds of inadmissibility
  
• Appeals : dismissal on substantive grounds
  

Formation of the Court

deuxième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Ó Caoimh

Advocate General

Mazák

Language(s) of the Case

• German
  

Language(s) of the Opinion

• English