France Telecom v Commission (Competition) [2007] EUECJ T-340/03 (30 January 2007)

France Telecom v Commission (Competition) [2007] EUECJ T-340/03 (30 January 2007)

The Commission did not breach procedural requirements or rights of defence; reasons were adequately stated; penalties were not improperly attributed to WIN for France Télécom's conduct; the relevant market was correctly defined as high-speed Internet access for residential customers; WIN held a dominant position; WIN's pricing constituted predatory pricing and abuse of dominant position under Article 82 EC.

Citation
[2007] EUECJ T-340/03
Parties
Applicant: Wanadoo Interactive SA (WIN); Respondent: European Commission
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
30 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Annulment of Commission Decision / Final Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Dominant Position, Predatory Pricing, Market Definition, Procedural Rights
Competition Law European Union Law Abuse of Dominant Position Predatory Pricing Market Definition Procedural Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wanadoo Interactive SA (WIN)

Applicant

European Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Annulment of Commission Decision / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether WIN's pricing constituted predatory pricing and abuse of dominant position under Article 82 EC
  2. 2 Whether procedural rights of defence were breached
  3. 3 Whether the Commission failed to state reasons

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission did not breach procedural requirements or rights of defence; reasons were adequately stated; penalties were not improperly attributed to WIN for France Télécom's conduct; the relevant market was correctly defined as high-speed Internet access for residential customers; WIN held a dominant position; WIN's pricing constituted predatory pricing and abuse of dominant position under Article 82 EC.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • WIN's action for annulment is dismissed
  • WIN is ordered to pay the costs