The District Court rules in the case of Síminn v. the Competition Authority

By decision No. 24/2023 The Competition Authority concluded that there were no grounds to accede to the requirement of Síminn to remove all the conditions to which the company had previously committed itself in order to promote competition in the telecommunications markets. Síminn (then Skipti) had A settlement was reached in 2013. the supervision of the conclusion of 7 cases concerning an investigation into whether the company had breached the prohibition provisions of competition law and a settlement it had made with the competition authorities. In 2015, the conditions were then reviewed at the request of Síminn, see decision No. 16/2015.

After Síminn sold its infrastructure company Míla, the company considered that the circumstances had changed and that all the commitments it had undertaken in the settlement should be cancelled. The Competition Authority disagreed, see decision no. 24/2023, and Síminn subsequently took the matter to the district court.

The district court's judgment was delivered today – see here . The main findings are as follows:

• The District Court disagreed with Síman that the conditions had lapsed, as the Competition Authority's deadlines for their review had passed.
• It is concluded that the Competition Authority did not lay a sufficiently solid foundation for its decision to largely deny Síminn's request to annul the conditions. On that basis, the district court overturned the Competition Authority's decision. No. 24/2023 out of value.
• The District Court disagrees with Síminn that the outcome prevents the Competition Authority from taking the matter to substantive proceedings again. This means that the conditions to which Síminn originally committed, and which are described in decision no. 6/2015, are still in full force.
• It is not accepted, in agreement with Síman, that the sale of Míla will render the conditions of the settlement unnecessary.

The Competition Authority will review the court's findings and will subsequently decide whether to review the conditions imposed on Síminn, pursuant to the decision. No. 6/2015, be taken up for reconsideration or whether the judgment of the District Court will be appealed to the Court of Appeal.