VOL.
2012, 5(7)
C A S E C O M M E N T S
Is the parallel competence set out in Regulation 1/2003 totally clear?
Case comment to the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice
of 3 May 2011
Tele 2 v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów...
More
VOL.
2012, 5(7)
C A S E C O M M E N T S
Is the parallel competence set out in Regulation 1/2003 totally clear?
Case comment to the preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice
of 3 May 2011
Tele 2 v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów
(Case C-375/09)
Background of the case – from the UOKiK President’s decision
to the Supreme Court
With a motion dated 28th of April 2005 submitted to the President of the Office of
Competition and Consumer Protection (in Polish: Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji
i Konsumentów; hereafter, UOKiK President), Tele2 Polska Sp.
z o.
o.
(currently:
Netia S.
A.
, hereafter, Applicant) requested the initiation of antitrust proceedings
against Telekomunikacja Polska S.
A.
(hereafter, TP).
The Polish incumbent, TP, was
alleged to have engaged in practices restricting competition covered by Article 8(1)
and 8(2)(5) of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection of 15th December
2000 (hereafter, Competition Act 2000) and in A
Less
