Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62009CN0052

    Case C-52/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tingsrätt Stockholm (Sweden) lodged on 6 February 2009 — Konkurrensverket v TeliaSonera Sverige AB

    SL C 90, 18.4.2009, p. 12–13 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    18.4.2009   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 90/12

    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tingsrätt Stockholm (Sweden) lodged on 6 February 2009 — Konkurrensverket v TeliaSonera Sverige AB

    (Case C-52/09)

    2009/C 90/19

    Language of the case: Swedish

    Referring court

    Tingsrätt Stockholm

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Konkurrensverket

    Intervener: Tele2 Sverige Aktiebolag

    Defendant: TeliaSonera Sverige AB

    Questions referred

    1.

    Under what conditions does an infringement of Article 82 EC arise on the basis of a difference between the price charged by a vertically integrated dominant undertaking for the sale of input ADSL products to competitors on the wholesale market and the price which the same undertaking charges on the end-user market?

    2.

    Is it only the prices of the dominant undertaking to end-users which are relevant or should the prices of competitors on the end-user market also be taken into account in the consideration of question 1?

    3.

    Is the answer to question 1 affected by the fact that the dominant undertaking does not have any regulatory obligation to supply on the wholesale market but has, rather, chosen to do so on its own initiative?

    4.

    Is an anti-competitive effect required in order for a practice of the kind described in question 1 to constitute abuse and, if so, how is that effect be to be determined?

    5.

    Is the answer to question 1 affected by the degree of market strength enjoyed by the dominant undertaking?

    6.

    Is the dominant position on both the wholesale market and the end-user market of the undertaking engaging in the practice required in order for a practice of the kind described in question 1 to constitute abuse?

    7.

    For a practice such as that described in question 1 to constitute abuse, must the good or service supplied by the dominant undertaking on the wholesale market be indispensable to competitors?

    8.

    Is the answer to question 1 affected by the question whether the supply is to a new customer?

    9.

    Is an expectation that the dominant undertaking will be able to recoup the losses it has incurred required in order for a practice of the kind described in question 1 to constitute abuse?

    10.

    Is the answer to question 1 affected by the question whether a change of technology is involved on a market with a high investment requirement, for example with regard to reasonable establishment costs and the possible need to sell at a loss during an establishment phase?
    Top