Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 February 2011.

Konkurrensverket v TeliaSonera Sverige AB.

Reference for a preliminary ruling: Stockholms tingsrätt - Sweden.

Preliminary ruling - Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of dominant position - Prices applied by telecommunications operator - ADSL input services - Broadband connection services to end users - Margin squeeze on competitors.

Case C-52/09.


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
02/04/2011 TeliaSonera Sverige
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2011:83
17/02/2011 TeliaSonera Sverige
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2011:83
17/02/2011 TeliaSonera Sverige
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2010:483
02/09/2010 TeliaSonera Sverige
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
18/04/2009 TeliaSonera Sverige
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

2011 I-00527

Subject-matter

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Stockholms tingsrätt – Interpretation of Article 82 EC – Margin squeeze effect – Prices applied by a telecommunications operator which formerly held a historical monopoly for ADSL access – Difference between the prices invoiced by the operator to intermediate operators for the wholesale supply of ADSL access and the tariffs applied by the operator to consumers for ADSL access not sufficient to cover the additional costs borne by the operator itself for the supply of those retail services

Systematic classification scheme

1.
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
        4.08.02.04.01 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
    4.08.02 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
        4.08.02.04.01 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
        4.08.02.04.01 Definition of abuse


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 86 : paragraph 57
  • TFEU, Article 3 -P1LB : paragraph 21
  • TFEU, Article 102 : paragraphs 1, 12, 19 - 115
  • TFEU, Article 102 -L2LA : paragraph 25
  • TFEU, Article 267 : paragraph 15
  • TEU, Article 3 -P3 : paragraph 20
  • TFEU - Protocol No 27 : paragraph 20
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -85/76 : paragraph 23
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/81 : paragraphs 24, 76
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -311/84 : paragraph 86
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -62/86 : paragraph 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -333/94 : paragraphs 81, 84 - 86
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -359/95 : paragraphs 49, 50
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -395/96 : paragraphs 24, 81
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -7/97 : paragraphs 54, 57, 58
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -94/00 : paragraph 22
  • Court of Justice - Order C -552/03 : paragraph 53
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -95/04 : paragraphs 75, 76
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -222/05 : paragraph 16
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -468/06 : paragraph 24
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -202/07 : paragraphs 24, 41, 75, 102
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -316/07 : paragraphs 15, 16
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -414/07 : paragraphs 15, 16
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -280/08 : paragraphs 23 - 28, 31, 34, 39 - 51, 61 - 63, 66, 70, 94
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -45/09 : paragraph 15

Operative part

  • Interprets : TFEU, Article 102

Opinion

  • TFEU, Article 102 : points 1, 5 - 58
  • TFEU, Article 102 -L2LA : point 32
  • TFEU, Article 102 -L2LB : points 32, 49
  • TFEU, Article 102 -L2LC : points 32, 51
  • TFEU, Article 345 : point 27
  • Decision 76/185 : point 47
  • Decision 88/518 : point 47
  • Decision 97/624 : point 32
  • Decision 98/190 : point 27
  • Decision 2001/892 : point 17
  • Decision 2003/707 : points 12, 47
  • Decision 2007/3196 : point 16
  • Commission - Other Acts - 52008XC0402(01) : points 32, 47, 55, 57
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -6/73 : point 49
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -26/75 : point 32
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -27/76 : points 9, 49
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -85/76 : points 8, 9, 45
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -31/80 : point 9
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -322/81 : point 9
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -311/84 : points 9, 14
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -62/86 : points 8, 9, 56
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -241/91 : point 49
  • General Court - Judgment T -93/91 : point 46
  • General Court - Judgment T -24/93 : point 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -333/94 : points 9, 46
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -242/95 : point 32
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -395/96 : point 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -395/96 : point 9
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -7/97 : points 15, 16, 26, 30
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -7/97 : points 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 26, 30, 49
  • General Court - Judgment T -5/97 : points 20, 45
  • General Court - Judgment T -228/97 : points 32, 41
  • General Court - Judgment T -65/98 : points 22, 23
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -310/99 : point 17
  • Court of Justice - Order C -497/99 : point 32
  • General Court - Judgment T -219/99 : point 40
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -418/01 : point 49
  • General Court - Judgment T -203/01 : point 40
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -53/03 : point 49
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -109/03 : points 25, 26
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -327/03 : point 25
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -544/03 : point 25
  • Court of Justice - Order C -552/03 : point 22
  • General Court - Judgment T -271/03 : points 12, 13, 18, 21, 34, 39 - 43
  • General Court - Judgment T -340/03 : point 55
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -95/04 : point 9
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -95/04 : points 9, 40
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -468/06 : point 40
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -468/06 : points 40, 49
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -202/07 : points 53, 56
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -202/07 : points 9, 32
  • General Court - Judgment T -336/07 : point 16
  • General Court - Judgment T -398/07 : point 16
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -280/08 : points 12, 13, 18, 21, 34, 37, 39, 42


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 06/02/2009

Date of the Opinion

  • 02/09/2010

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

17/02/2011


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 90 from 18.04.2009, p.12

Judgment: OJ C 103 from 02.04.2011, p.3

Name of the parties

TeliaSonera Sverige

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Idot, Laurence: Abus de position dominante et compression des marges, Europe 2011 Avril Comm. nº 4 p.21-23 (FR)
  2. Braeken, B.J.H.: Het arrest TeliaSonera: geen economische invulling van het begrip prijssqueeze, Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht 2011 p.157-162 (NL)
  3. Mok, M.R.: Nederlandse jurisprudentie ; Uitspraken in burgerlijke en strafzaken 2011 nº 268 (NL)
  4. Tuominen, N.: La jurisprudence de la Cour de justice et du Tribunal de première instance. Commentaires des arrêts. Arrêt « Konkurrensverket v. TeliaSonera », Revue du droit de l'Union européenne 2011 nº 1 p.144-149 (FR)
  5. Prieto, Catherine ; Roda, Jean-Christophe: Concurrence. Mise en oeuvre des articles 101 et 102 TFUE, Journal du droit international 2011 p.553-564 (FR)
  6. Leupold, Henning: Kosten-Preis-Schere als Missbrauch einer marktbeherrschenden Stellung, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2011 p.345-347 (DE)
  7. Pellech, Isabelle: Zu Fragen des Margin Squeeze unter Berücksichtigung der Entscheidung in Sachen TeliaSonera, ÖZK aktuell : Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kartell- und Wettbewerbsrecht 2011 p.60-64 (DE)
  8. Sibony, Anne-Lise: Compression des marges - Ciseau tarifaire : La CJUE juge qu’il peut y avoir abus par compression des marges même si la prestation intermédiaire n’est pas un intrant indispensable pour les nouveaux entrants sur le marché aval, dès lors qu’un effet d’éviction potentiel peut être établi (Konkurrensverket c/ TeliaSonera), Concurrences : revue des droits de la concurrence 2011 nº 2 p.108-110 (FR)
  9. Colangelo, Giuseppe: Il margin squeeze in Europa dopo Deutsche Telekom e TeliaSonera, Mercato concorrenza regole 2011 p.367-377 (IT)
  10. Pohlmann, Petra ; Auf´mkolk, Hendrik: EuGH: Missbräuchlichkeit der Kosten-Preis-Schere nach Europäischem Kartellrecht, Beck-fachdienst Zivilrecht - LMK 2011 Ausgabe 4 316705 (DE)
  11. Gänswein, Olivier: Margenbeschneidung als Fallgruppe des Missbrauchs einer marktbeherrschenden Stellung nach Art. 102 AEUV, European Law Reporter 2011 p.191-192 (DE)
  12. Ondrejka, Peter ; Maritzen, Lars: EuGH: Kosten-Preis-Schere nach TeliaSonera, Österreichisches Recht der Wirtschaft 2011 p.727-731 (DE)
  13. Philippe, Jérôme ; Trabucchi, Maria: Jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne. Concurrence. À la faveur d'une question préjudicielle, la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne précise encore, à la suite de l'arrêt Deutsche Telekom , les conditions d'illicéité d'une pratique de ciseau tarifaire (« price squeeze ») mise en œuvre par une entreprise en position dominante au regard de l'article 102 du TFUE, Gazette du Palais 2011 nº 259-260 Jur. p.23-24 (FR)
  14. Wurmnest, Wolfgang: Case C-52/09, Konkurrensverket v. TeliaSonera Sverige AB, Judgment of the Court of Justice (First Chamber) of 17 February 2011, nyr., Common Market Law Review 2012 p.721-736 (EN)
  15. Kohutek, Konrad: Aprobata testu efektywności i odrzucenie warunku niezbędności dla oceny praktyki nożyc cenowych w świetle art. 102 TFUE - glosa częściowo krytyczna do wyroku Trybunału Sprawiedliwości z 17.02.2011 r. w sprawie C-52/09 Konkurrensverket v. TeliaSonera, Glosa : Przegląd Prawa Gospodarczego 2012 Vol.4 p.94-101 (PL)
  16. Rauber, Martin: Case C-52/09, Konkurrentsverket v TeliaSonera Sverige AB, [2011] E.C.R. I-527 - Confirming an inappropriate assessment framework for margin squeeze, European Competition Law Review 2013 p.490-499 (EN)
  17. Matei, Emanuela: Foarfeca tarifară, o practică al cărei caracter anticoncurențial se verifică prin raportare la conceptul de «concurență bazată pe merite», Revista română de drept al afacerilor 2013 nº 6 p.46-62 (RO)
  18. Henriksson, Lars: Marginalklämning som missbruk av marknadsdominans – en analys av MD:s avgörande i TeliaSonera-målet, Ny Juridik 2013 nº 2 p.45-64 (SV)
  19. 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

Stockholms tingsrätt - Sweden

Subject-matter

  • Competition
  • - Dominant position

Procedure and result

  • Reference for a preliminary ruling

Formation of the Court

première chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Tizzano

Advocate General

Mazák

Language(s) of the Case

  • Swedish

Language(s) of the Opinion

  • English