•  
  •  
 

Keywords

damages, private enforcement, abuse, competition law, sector-specific regulation, refusal to supply, essential facilities

Abstract

Private enforcement in Lithuania is still at the early development stage, as only a few infringement decisions of the national competition authority – the Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania – have been followed on by private antitrust claims. Nevertheless, it might be observed that victims of competition law infringements tend to initiate standalone claims for compensation of damages in Lithuania. However, not all of those cases are successful. On 3 March 2017, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania rejected a damages claim for EUR 2.9 million brought by a company that claimed to have been refused infrastructure access (an essential facility) by the dominant state-owned telecommunication company; infrastructure access was necessary for the provision of its own services. The case is interesting and worth mentioning due to the complexity and interrelation of competition law and the regulation of electronic communications (such as the interrelation of dominance in competition law and significant market power under the regulatory framework). The case is also noteworthy becaouse of the lack of involvement by the Competition Council and the Communication Regulatory Authority as well as their position in the dispute. Of relevance is also a change made to the laws related to the dispute and further consequences of the dispute.

First Page

269

Last Page

278

Page Count

9

DOI

10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2017.10.15.13

Publisher

University of Warsaw

Publication Date

2017-06-30

Download

Share

COinS