# C_2009090EN.01001202.xml

| 18.4.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tingsrätt Stockholm (Sweden) lodged on 6 February 2009 — Konkurrensverket v TeliaSonera Sverige AB

(Case C-52/09)

2009/C 90/19

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Referring court

Tingsrätt Stockholm

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Konkurrensverket

Applicant:

Intervener: Tele2 Sverige Aktiebolag

Intervener:

Defendant: TeliaSonera Sverige AB

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Under what conditions does an infringement of Article 82 EC arise on the basis of a difference between the price charged by a vertically integrated dominant undertaking for the sale of input ADSL products to competitors on the wholesale market and the price which the same undertaking charges on the end-user market? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Under what conditions does an infringement of Article 82 EC arise on the basis of a difference between the price charged by a vertically integrated dominant undertaking for the sale of input ADSL products to competitors on the wholesale market and the price which the same undertaking charges on the end-user market?

| 2. | Is it only the prices of the dominant undertaking to end-users which are relevant or should the prices of competitors on the end-user market also be taken into account in the consideration of question 1? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it only the prices of the dominant undertaking to end-users which are relevant or should the prices of competitors on the end-user market also be taken into account in the consideration of question 1?

| 3. | Is the answer to question 1 affected by the fact that the dominant undertaking does not have any regulatory obligation to supply on the wholesale market but has, rather, chosen to do so on its own initiative? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the answer to question 1 affected by the fact that the dominant undertaking does not have any regulatory obligation to supply on the wholesale market but has, rather, chosen to do so on its own initiative?

| 4. | Is an anti-competitive effect required in order for a practice of the kind described in question 1 to constitute abuse and, if so, how is that effect be to be determined? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is an anti-competitive effect required in order for a practice of the kind described in question 1 to constitute abuse and, if so, how is that effect be to be determined?

| 5. | Is the answer to question 1 affected by the degree of market strength enjoyed by the dominant undertaking? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Is the answer to question 1 affected by the degree of market strength enjoyed by the dominant undertaking?

| 6. | Is the dominant position on both the wholesale market and the end-user market of the undertaking engaging in the practice required in order for a practice of the kind described in question 1 to constitute abuse? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Is the dominant position on both the wholesale market and the end-user market of the undertaking engaging in the practice required in order for a practice of the kind described in question 1 to constitute abuse?

| 7. | For a practice such as that described in question 1 to constitute abuse, must the good or service supplied by the dominant undertaking on the wholesale market be indispensable to competitors? |
| --- | --- |

7.

For a practice such as that described in question 1 to constitute abuse, must the good or service supplied by the dominant undertaking on the wholesale market be indispensable to competitors?

| 8. | Is the answer to question 1 affected by the question whether the supply is to a new customer? |
| --- | --- |

8.

Is the answer to question 1 affected by the question whether the supply is to a new customer?

| 9. | Is an expectation that the dominant undertaking will be able to recoup the losses it has incurred required in order for a practice of the kind described in question 1 to constitute abuse? |
| --- | --- |

9.

Is an expectation that the dominant undertaking will be able to recoup the losses it has incurred required in order for a practice of the kind described in question 1 to constitute abuse?

| 10. | Is the answer to question 1 affected by the question whether a change of technology is involved on a market with a high investment requirement, for example with regard to reasonable establishment costs and the possible need to sell at a loss during an establishment phase? |
| --- | --- |

10.

Is the answer to question 1 affected by the question whether a change of technology is involved on a market with a high investment requirement, for example with regard to reasonable establishment costs and the possible need to sell at a loss during an establishment phase?

---