# C_2017429EN.01002901.xml

| 14.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/29

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 30 June 2017 in the case of Fjarskipti hf. v Síminn hf.

(Case E-6/17)

(2017/C 429/13)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 30 June 2017 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2017, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Fjarskipti hf. v Síminn hf. on the following questions:

| 1. | Does it constitute part of the effective implementation of the EEA Agreement that a natural or a legal person in an EFTA State should be able to invoke Article 54 of the Agreement before a domestic court in order to claim compensation for a violation of the prohibitions of that provision? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does it constitute part of the effective implementation of the EEA Agreement that a natural or a legal person in an EFTA State should be able to invoke Article 54 of the Agreement before a domestic court in order to claim compensation for a violation of the prohibitions of that provision?

| 2. | When assessing whether the conditions are fulfilled for a compensation claim in view of a violation of competition rules, is it of significance whether the competent authorities have delivered a final ruling on a violation of Article 54 EEA? |
| --- | --- |

2.

When assessing whether the conditions are fulfilled for a compensation claim in view of a violation of competition rules, is it of significance whether the competent authorities have delivered a final ruling on a violation of Article 54 EEA?

| 3. | Is it regarded as an unlawful margin squeeze, violating Article 54 EEA, when an undertaking in a dominant position on a wholesale market sets termination rates applying to its competitors in such a way that the dominant undertaking’s own retail division would be unable to profit from the sale of telephone calls within its system if it had to bear the cost of selling them under the same circumstances, when the dominant undertaking itself is also obliged to purchase termination from these same competitors at a higher price than that at which it sells termination to its competitors? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it regarded as an unlawful margin squeeze, violating Article 54 EEA, when an undertaking in a dominant position on a wholesale market sets termination rates applying to its competitors in such a way that the dominant undertaking’s own retail division would be unable to profit from the sale of telephone calls within its system if it had to bear the cost of selling them under the same circumstances, when the dominant undertaking itself is also obliged to purchase termination from these same competitors at a higher price than that at which it sells termination to its competitors?

| 4. | Is the fact that an undertaking is in a dominant position on the relevant wholesale market sufficient for it to be guilty of applying an unlawful margin squeeze, violating Article 54 EEA, or must the undertaking also be in a dominant position on the relevant retail market? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is the fact that an undertaking is in a dominant position on the relevant wholesale market sufficient for it to be guilty of applying an unlawful margin squeeze, violating Article 54 EEA, or must the undertaking also be in a dominant position on the relevant retail market?

---