EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document E2017J0006
Judgment of the Court of 30 May 2018 in Case E-6/17 — Fjarskipti hf. V Síminn hf. (Article 54 EEA — Abuse of a dominant position — Margin squeeze — Right to claim damages — Applicability of provisions of the EEA Agreement in domestic proceedings — Significance of a final ruling of a competition authority)
Judgment of the Court of 30 May 2018 in Case E-6/17 — Fjarskipti hf. V Síminn hf. (Article 54 EEA — Abuse of a dominant position — Margin squeeze — Right to claim damages — Applicability of provisions of the EEA Agreement in domestic proceedings — Significance of a final ruling of a competition authority)
Judgment of the Court of 30 May 2018 in Case E-6/17 — Fjarskipti hf. V Síminn hf. (Article 54 EEA — Abuse of a dominant position — Margin squeeze — Right to claim damages — Applicability of provisions of the EEA Agreement in domestic proceedings — Significance of a final ruling of a competition authority)
OJ C 335, 20.9.2018, p. 19–19
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
20.9.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 335/19 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 30 May 2018
in Case E-6/17
Fjarskipti hf. V Síminn hf.
(Article 54 EEA — Abuse of a dominant position — Margin squeeze — Right to claim damages — Applicability of provisions of the EEA Agreement in domestic proceedings — Significance of a final ruling of a competition authority)
(2018/C 335/11)
In Case E-6/17, Fjarskipti hf. v Síminn hf. — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the District Court of Reykjavík (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur) concerning the interpretation of Article 54 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur), and Martin Ospelt (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 30 May 2018, the operative part of which is as follows:
|
1. |
A natural or legal person must be able to rely on Article 54 EEA, as it is, or has been made, part of domestic law, in order to claim compensation before a national court for a violation of the prohibitions laid down in that provision. |
|
2. |
It is not a prerequisite for a court’s assessment of a damages claim for violation of competition rules that a national competition authority has handed down a final ruling finding a violation of Article 54 EEA. Where a national competition authority has given such a ruling, EEA law does not require that the ruling is binding on the national courts in a follow-on action. In the absence of EEA law governing the procedure and remedies for violations of competition law, it falls under the procedural autonomy of each EEA State to lay down the detailed rules on the degree of significance to be attached to a final ruling, subject to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. |
|
3. |
The fact that a dominant undertaking is obliged to purchase termination services from other operators at a rate higher than its own, does not preclude a finding that the dominant undertaking’s own pricing practice in the form of a margin squeeze constitutes an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 54 EEA. |
|
4. |
It is sufficient for the finding of an unlawful margin squeeze in violation of Article 54 EEA that the undertaking in question is in a dominant position on the relevant wholesale market. It is not required that the undertaking holds a dominant position also on the relevant retail market. |