In its opinion on the appeal against the Court of First Instance ruling in the France Telecom case, Advocate general Mazák concluded that the CFI judgment should be set aside.
This conclusion is essentially based on (i) the need to prove the possibility of recoupment of losses, and (ii) the right to align its prices to those of its competitors.
Because, in the AG's view, "the issues of the proof of the possibility of recoupment and of the right of alignment are so central to the case", the AG proposed that the case be re-examined by the Court of First Instance".
Opinions of advocate generals are followed by the Court in around 80% of the cases.
This opinion is very interesting, as it departs from established understanding of the EU competition principles, such as the fact that, in Europe, recoupment was included in the dominance test.
Some food for thought: In the telecom industry, does the fact that NRAs could impose cost orientation and price control remedies implies that there could never be recoupment?
This conclusion is essentially based on (i) the need to prove the possibility of recoupment of losses, and (ii) the right to align its prices to those of its competitors.
Because, in the AG's view, "the issues of the proof of the possibility of recoupment and of the right of alignment are so central to the case", the AG proposed that the case be re-examined by the Court of First Instance".
Opinions of advocate generals are followed by the Court in around 80% of the cases.
This opinion is very interesting, as it departs from established understanding of the EU competition principles, such as the fact that, in Europe, recoupment was included in the dominance test.
Some food for thought: In the telecom industry, does the fact that NRAs could impose cost orientation and price control remedies implies that there could never be recoupment?
0 comments:
Post a comment on: Wanadoo case: The Advocate General suggests that the CFI erred in law!