By the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on
The High Court upheld the district court's decision to annul an order.
the Competition Appeals Tribunal where Síminn was fined for breaching
in breach of an agreement the company had made with the Competition Authority.
With the settlement, Síminn
committed to doing so, on the one hand, by not making it a condition for
The purchase of the company's telecommunications service included a linear television service.
included in the purchase and, on the other hand, not bundling the sale of telecommunications services
of the company and linear television service against a price or commercial terms which
could be equated to such a condition.
The origin of the matter can be traced to that.
that Vodafone (Sýn hf.) complained about the conduct of Síminn, as well as Nova doing
comments on the conduct. The conduct was primarily concerned with a significant price difference and different
commercial terms for the sale of the television channel Símanum Sport, where games in
are shown in the English Premier League of football, depending on whether the subscription was
offered within the Síminn Home Package (with the company's telecommunications service) or
a standalone subscription. With the decision of the Competition Authority, the conduct
The company's actions are considered to breach the terms of two agreements it had made with
the authority and the company were made to pay a fine into the state treasury.
By a ruling of the appeal board
The breaches of the first agreement by Síminn were confirmed, but possible breaches of the second agreement.
Referred to the Competition Authority for a new procedure.
The case concerns important
Issues in the application of competition law, including whether the conditions for interlinkage
or a distortion of trade exists within the meaning of competition law. Also
tests whether a company that makes a settlement with the Competition Authority has to
be the market-dominant undertaking so that the conditions for a settlement apply to it. In the judgment of the Court of Appeal, it is
reached the conclusion regarding the second agreement that Síminn had to be
in a position of market dominance so that its conditions apply. In the case, the claimant relied on
The Competition Authority therefore held that such a decision was inconsistent with both domestic case law
or case-law in EEA/EC competition law.
The Competition Authority now has until
to consider whether an application will be made to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal the judgment.
"*" indicates required fields
