Background
The point is that with a decision in 2015, the Competition Authority authorised Vodafone
and for Nova to have with itself a specific partnership for the operation of a distribution system for
mobile phone service. The precondition for this was that the companies agreed to comply with the conditions
which are to work against their cooperation on the operation of the distribution system being disrupted
competition in markets for mobile phone services at both the wholesale and retail levels
at the retail level. The conditions were also intended to create more options and there
with increased opportunities for current and new service providers in the market for
mobile phone services at the retail level and thus promote further competition in the market.
in the relevant markets. An opportunity is also created for better utilisation of
investments in the underlying systems of mobile services.
The phone
was dissatisfied with the decision of the Competition Authority and appealed it to
the Competition Appeals Board, which upheld it. Following this, Síminn brought a lawsuit.
a case before the courts, and the district court delivered its judgment in the case today.
The Competition Authority's investigation in all respects
High-quality and detailed
In the case, Síminn based its case, among other things, on the fact that
The Competition Authority had not investigated the matter adequately and that
to have imposed more detailed conditions on the cooperation. The Regional Court rejects this. Is that
the district court's finding that the Competition Authority's investigation was in all respects
be thorough and detailed. It is the district court's conclusion that there is no reason to
to call into question the Competition Authority's assessment that the conditions were satisfactory
with regard to the provisions of competition law.
The expert assessment by the appointed experts shall not be interfered with.
The assessment of the Competition Authority
During the proceedings, Síminn obtained an expert assessment.
of expert witnesses to support their case. Is that the conclusion
The regional court ruled that the valuation does not interfere with the Competition Authority's assessment in the case.
The district court then refuses to consider the report of a foreign consultancy firm which
The phone was obtained for the reason that the report had been obtained unilaterally.
Appellate Board's decision based on law
premises
In the case, Síminn based its case, among other things, on the fact that
the appeal panel's decision would be based on incorrect premises. The district court rejects
this and notes that the wording in the ruling will not be interpreted in such a narrow
the interpretation that Síminn makes in its legal proceedings.
"*" indicates required fields
