Competition protection in the interest of the private sector or of the state?

Telekom – The Impregnable State Fortress

Last month, the Ljubljana District Court issued its ruling, completely dismissing T-2’s damages claims against Telekom Slovenije in the amount of 130 million euros. T-2 filed its lawsuit already six years ago against Telekom Slovenije over alleged anti-competitive actions, which, it claimed, prevented it from successfully entering the internet services market. The main hearing did not get underway until January of this year, but it finished in just an hour and a half, so the ruling was no surprise. At the hearing, the judge did not even ask the question of whether or not the claims of Telekom’s abuse of dominant market position were founded, but first verified that T-2 had submitted enough evidence to calculate the damages. Since the judge was of the opinion that a solid cubic meter of documents was insufficient, she completed the proceedings without even giving T-2 an opportunity to submit additional evidence for its claims. With such a conclusion to the case in which the parties submitted to the court a total of three thousand pages of written materials over the course of six years and over five thousand pieces of evidence, one has to ask the question, what poses the greatest obstacle to competition: Telekom, the Civil Procedures Act, or Slovenian courts themselves? Or is this a concerted action?

Is Telekom not guilty?

Telekom’s management continues to insist that it has always adhered to Slovenian legislation, and that it has not violated any competition rules. Yet the facts suggest otherwise. Telekom’s competitors have been fighting against its anti-competitive activities and abuse of dominant market position since 1996. In these fifteen years, at least a dozen proceedings have been initiated before the Slovenian Competition Protection Agency (previously the Competition Protection Office). The Agency has never been particularly keen on investigating Telekom’s alleged abuses, as the proceedings for establishing the existence of infringements have always been dragged out longer than stipulated by law, but it has nonetheless issued a few decisions.

Varstvo konkurence v zasebnem interesu ali v interesu države?

Telekom – nepremagljiva državna trdnjava

Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani je prejšnji mesec razglasilo sodbo, s katero je v celoti zavrnilo tožbeni zahtevek operaterja T-2 proti Telekomu Slovenije v višini sto trideset milijonov evrov. T-2 je vložil tožbo že pred šestimi leti zaradi domnevnih protikonkurenčnih dejanj Telekoma Slovenije, ki naj bi mu preprečevala uspešen vstop na trg internetnih storitev. Glavna obravnava se je začela šele letos januarja, vendar se je končala v pičli uri in pol, tako da je bila sodba pričakovana. Sodnica si na obravnavi sploh ni zastavila vprašanja, ali so obtožbe o telekomovih zlorabah prevladujočega položaja utemeljene, ampak je najprej preverjala, ali je T-2 predložil dovolj dokazov za izračun škode. Ker po njenem mnenju za dober kubični meter dokumentov ni bilo dovolj, je postopek zaključila, ne da bi T-2 dala priložnost, da dokaze ustrezno dopolni. Ob takšnem zaključku postopka, v katerem sta sprti stranki v šestih letih priprav skupaj napisali skoraj tri tisoč strani vlog in sodišču predložili prek pet tisoč dokaznih listin, se upravičeno zastavlja vprašanje, kdo je večji nasprotnik konkurence, telekom ali zakon o pravdnem postopku in slovenska sodišča? Ali pa ne gre morda za usklajeno delovanje?

Telekom ni kriv?

Telekomovo vodstvo vztrajno zatrjuje, da spoštuje slovensko zakonodajo in da ne krši konkurenčnih pravil. A dejstva govorijo drugače. Telekomovi konkurenti se že od leta 1996 borijo proti njegovim zlorabam prevladujočega položaja. V petnajstih letih je bilo proti telekomu pri javni agenciji za varstvo konkurence (prej urad) uvedenih vsaj ducat postopkov. Agencija pri obravnavanju telekomovih domnevnih zlorab ni bila posebej zavzeta, saj so postopki ugotavljanja kršitev vselej trajali dlje, kot je predpisovala zakonodaja, a je vendarle izdala nekaj odločb.