Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010.

Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission.

Appeal - Competition - Article 82 EC - Markets for telecommunications services - Access to the fixed network of the incumbent operator - Wholesale charges for local loop access services to competitors - Retail charges for access services to end-users - Pricing practices of a dominant undertaking - Margin squeeze - Charges approved by the national regulatory authority - Leeway of the dominant undertaking - Attributability of the infringement - Meaning of ‘abuse’ - As-efficient-competitor test - Calculation of the margin squeeze - Effects of the abuse - Amount of the fine.

Case C-280/08 P.



Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
18/12/2010 Deutsche Telekom v Commission
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2010:603
14/10/2010 Deutsche Telekom v Commission
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2010:603
14/10/2010 Deutsche Telekom v Commission
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2010:212
22/04/2010 Deutsche Telekom v Commission
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
30/08/2008 Deutsche Telekom v Commission
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

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

1.
3 Legal proceedings
  3.10 Appeals
    3.10.06 Pleas in law
3 Legal proceedings
  3.10 Appeals
    3.10.06 Pleas in law
3 Legal proceedings
  3.01 Actions for failure to fulfil obligations
    3.01.00 General
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.02 Dominant position
      4.08.02.04 Abuse of a dominant position
        4.08.02.04.02 Examples of abuse
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.03 Implementation of the competition rules
      4.08.03.01 Division of powers between the Commission and the authorities of the Member States
3 Legal proceedings
  3.10 Appeals
    3.10.04 Questions of law or fact
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.03 Implementation of the competition rules
      4.08.03.03 Implementation by the national competition authorities
        4.08.03.03.01
2 Institutional framework of the European Union
  2.05 Legal acts of the European Union
    2.05.06 Statement of reasons
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.02 Dominant position
      4.08.02.04 Abuse of a dominant position
        4.08.02.04.02 Examples of abuse
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.02 Dominant position
      4.08.02.04 Abuse of a dominant position
        4.08.02.04.01 Definition of abuse
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.02 Dominant position
      4.08.02.04 Abuse of a dominant position
        4.08.02.04.01 Definition of abuse
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.02 Dominant position
      4.08.02.04 Abuse of a dominant position
        4.08.02.04.02 Examples of abuse
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.02 Dominant position
      4.08.02.04 Abuse of a dominant position
        4.08.02.04.01 Definition of abuse
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.03 Implementation of the competition rules
      4.08.03.03 Implementation by the national competition authorities
        4.08.03.03.04 null
          4.08.03.03.04.02 null
            4.08.03.03.04.02.02 null
              4.08.03.03.04.02.02.01 null
                4.08.03.03.04.02.02.01.01 null
                  4.08.03.03.04.02.02.01.01.00
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.03 Implementation of the competition rules
      4.08.03.03 Implementation by the national competition authorities
        4.08.03.03.04 null
          4.08.03.03.04.00
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.08 Competition
    4.08.03 Implementation of the competition rules
      4.08.03.03 Implementation by the national competition authorities
        4.08.03.03.05 null
          4.08.03.03.05.01


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

Operative part

Opinion


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)



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Information not available

Subject-matter

  • Competition
  • - Dominant position

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