CELEX: 62019CA0857
Language: en
Date: 2021-02-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-857/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Slovak Telekom a.s. v Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 102 TFEU — Abuse of a dominant position — Division of competences between the European Commission and the national competition authorities — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 11(6) — National competition authorities relieved of their competence — Principle ne bis in idem — Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

19.4.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 138/11
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 February 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Slovak Telekom a.s. v Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky
      (Case C-857/19) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of a dominant position - Division of competences between the European Commission and the national competition authorities - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 11(6) - National competition authorities relieved of their competence - Principle ne bis in idem - Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
      (2021/C 138/13)
      Language of the case: Slovak
      
         Referring court
      
      Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant and appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Slovak Telekom a.s.
      
         Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  The first sentence of Article 11(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 and 102 TFEU] must be interpreted as meaning that the competition authorities of the Member States are relieved of their competence to apply Articles 101 and 102 TFEU in the case where the European Commission initiates proceedings for the purposes of adopting a decision finding an infringement of those provisions in so far as that formal act relates to the same alleged infringements of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, committed by the same undertaking or undertakings on the same product market or markets and the same geographical market or markets during the same period or periods as those concerned by the proceeding or proceedings previously brought by those authorities.
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  The principle ne bis in idem, as enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to infringements of competition law, such as the abuse of a dominant position referred to in Article 102 TFEU, and precludes an undertaking from being found liable or proceedings from being brought against it afresh on the grounds of anticompetitive conduct for which it has been penalised or declared not liable by an earlier decision that can no longer be challenged. By contrast, that principle does not apply where proceedings are brought against or sanctions imposed on an undertaking separately and independently by a competition authority of a Member State and the European Commission for infringements of Article 102 TFEU relating to separate product markets or separate geographical markets, or where a competition authority of a Member State is relieved of its competence pursuant to the first sentence of Article 11(6) of Regulation No 1/2003.
               
            
         (1)  OJ C 36, 3.2.2020.