In June and December 2017 respectively the Svea Court of Appeal ("Court of Appeal") delivered two rulings marking the next chapters in the lengthy story about the Swedish former telecom incumbent Telia Company’s (previously TeliaSonera) alleged abuse of dominance by way of margin squeeze. The story involves an infringement case brought by the Swedish Competition Authority before two Swedish courts, a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice in Luxembourg (the debated case C-52/09, TeliaSonera Sverige), and two related private follow-on damages claims. Contrary to all previous rulings of the national courts, the Court of Appeal, in one of the two follow-on cases, concluded that Telia had not abused its dominant position. In the other follow-on case the same court in contrast found that Telia had in fact abused its dominant position. However, as regards the claims for the actual damages, the causality between the conduct and the damages was not proven and the claims were therefore dismissed. Both follow-on cases have been appealed to the Supreme Court (leave to appeal pending).
Focusing on the Court of Appeal's decision in one of the follow-on cases the article elaborates upon on the various courts’ different analyses of effects relating to negative and insufficient margins.
You can find the full article attached above.
This article first appeared in the February 2018 issue of the Newsletter of the Antitrust Committee of the Legal Practice Division of the International Bar Association (Vol 31, No 1), and is reproduced by kind permission of the International Bar Association, London, UK. © International Bar Association.