Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Konkurrensverket v TeliaSonera Sverige AB (C-52/09)
Judgment
Consideration of the questions referre…
25

Konkurrensverket v TeliaSonera Sverige AB (C-52/09)

Judgment of 17 Feb 2011law://eu/cjeu/2009/c-52-09/para_25@2026-11-11

25As regards the abusive nature of pricing practices such as those in the main proceedings, it must be noted that subparagraph (a) of the second paragraph of Article 102 TFEU expressly prohibits a dominant undertaking from directly or indirectly imposing unfair prices.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · First Chamber
Case: C-52/09 · ECLI:EU:C:2011:83
Decided: 17 Feb 2011
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Stockholms tingsrätt (Sweden)
Applicant: Konkurrensverket
Defendant: TeliaSonera Sverige AB
Rapporteur: A. Tizzano
Advocate General: J. Mazák
Bench: 5 judges
A. Tizzano, A. Borg Barthet, M. Ilešič, M. Safjan, M. Berger
Language: Swedish
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62009CJ0052

Topics

Dominant position

History · 1 version

17 Feb 2011Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)2 provisions
Cited by 17: bpost SA v Autorité belge de la concurrence (C-117/20); Towercast v Autorité de la concurrence and Ministère de l’Économie (C-449/21); Servizio Elettrico Nazionale SpA and Others v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato and Others (C-377/20); Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission (C-152/19 P)2 provisions; European Superleague Company, SL v Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) and Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) (C-333/21); « Lukoil Bulgaria » EOOD v Komisia za zashtita na konkurentsiata (C-260/24); Qualcomm, Inc. v European Commission (T-671/19); Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB v European Commission (C-42/21 P); Google LLC and Alphabet, Inc. v European Commission (T-604/18); Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. v European Commission (T-616/18); Google LLC, formerly Google Inc. and Alphabet, Inc. v European Commission (T-612/17)2 provisions; Slovak Telekom, a.s. v European Commission (C-165/19 P)2 provisions; Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB v European Commission (T-814/17); CK Telecoms UK Investments Ltd v European Commission (T-399/16); Generics (UK) Ltd and Others v Competition and Markets Authority (C-307/18); České dráhy a.s. v European Commission (C-538/18); Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission (T-827/14)6 provisions
Cites 20: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)4 provisions; Treaty on European Union (consolidated 2016); Gisela Rosenbladt v Oellerking Gebäudereinigungsges. mbH (C-45/09); Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co. KG v Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG, Mediaprint Zeitungsvertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and Mediaprint Anzeigengesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (C-7/97); Roquette Frères SA v Directeur général de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes, and Commission of the European Communities (C-94/00); Markus Stoß, Avalon Service-Online-Dienste GmbH and Olaf Amadeus Wilhelm Happel v Wetteraukreis and Kulpa Automatenservice Asperg GmbH, SOBO Sport & Entertainment GmbH and Andreas Kunert v Land Baden-Württemberg (C-316/07, C-358/07, C-359/07, C-360/07, C-409/07, C-410/07); France Télécom SA v Commission of the European Communities (C-202/07); Centre belge d'études de marché - Télémarketing (CBEM) v SA Compagnie luxembourgeoise de télédiffusion (CLT) and Information publicité Benelux (IPB) (311/84); Deutsche Telekom AG v European Commission (C-280/08 P); Commission of the European Communities and French Republic v Ladbroke Racing Ltd (C-359/95 P, C-379/95 P); AKZO Chemie BV v Commission of the European Communities (C-62/86); J. van der Weerd and Others, H. de Rooy sr. and H. de Rooy jr., Maatschap H. en J. van ’t Oever and Others and B. J. van Middendorp v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (C-222/05, C-223/05, C-224/05, C-225/05); Sot. Lélos kai Sia EE and Others v GlaxoSmithKline AEVE Farmakeftikon Proïonton, formerly Glaxowellcome AEVE (C-468/06); Compagnie maritime belge transports SA, Compagnie maritime belge SA and Dafra-Lines A/S v Commission of the European Communities (C-395/96 P, C-396/96 P); Tetra Pak International SA v Commission of the European Communities (C-333/94 P); British Airways plc v Commission of the European Communities (C-95/04 P); Magoora sp. zo. o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie (C-414/07); Unilever Bestfoods (Ireland) Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (C-552/03); NV Nederlandsche Banden Industrie Michelin v Commission of the European Communities (322/81); Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. AG v Commission of the European Communities (85/76)