Possible objective justification of a network monopoly’s refusal to conclude an agreement on an interconnected market. Case comment to the judgement of the Supreme Court of 14 January 2009 – Rychwał Commune (Ref. No. III SK 24/08)

In the decision RPZ-18/2006 issued on 5 July 2006, the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (hereafter, UOKiK) stated that the practices of the Rychwał Commune constituted an abuse of its dominant position held on the local market for liquid waste services. The practice con...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Joanna Jeżewska
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Published:	University of Warsaw 2010-11-01
Series:	Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
Online Access:	https://yars.wz.uw.edu.pl/images/yars2010_3_3/Jezewska_Possible_objective_justification_of_a_network_monopolys_refusal.pdf

id	doaj-a0fba9707d33406ebe3d669d10a6bff3
record_format	Article
spelling	doaj-a0fba9707d33406ebe3d669d10a6bff32020-11-25T04:04:40ZengUniversity of WarsawYearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies1689-90242545-01152010-11-0133271276Possible objective justification of a network monopoly’s refusal to conclude an agreement on an interconnected market. Case comment to the judgement of the Supreme Court of 14 January 2009 – Rychwał Commune (Ref. No. III SK 24/08)Joanna JeżewskaIn the decision RPZ-18/2006 issued on 5 July 2006, the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (hereafter, UOKiK) stated that the practices of the Rychwał Commune constituted an abuse of its dominant position held on the local market for liquid waste services. The practice consisted of the refusal to conclude an agreement with an entrepreneur for the receiving of liquid waste from the residents of the Commune. Rychwał refused to conclude the contract on technical grounds stating that the amount of liquid waste that could be received by their refinery was limited by the amount inflowing through their sanitary sewage system. The Commune invoked also the refinery’s exploitation manual and stressed that the facility’s limits were filled by those entities that were already providing such services in its territory, seeing as the Commune has previously signed several of such contracts with other entities.https://yars.wz.uw.edu.pl/images/yars2010_3_3/Jezewska_Possible_objective_justification_of_a_network_monopolys_refusal.pdf
collection	DOAJ
language	English
format	Article
sources	DOAJ
author	Joanna Jeżewska
spellingShingle	Joanna Jeżewska Possible objective justification of a network monopoly’s refusal to conclude an agreement on an interconnected market. Case comment to the judgement of the Supreme Court of 14 January 2009 – Rychwał Commune (Ref. No. III SK 24/08) Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
author_facet	Joanna Jeżewska
author_sort	Joanna Jeżewska
title	Possible objective justification of a network monopoly’s refusal to conclude an agreement on an interconnected market. Case comment to the judgement of the Supreme Court of 14 January 2009 – Rychwał Commune (Ref. No. III SK 24/08)
title_short	Possible objective justification of a network monopoly’s refusal to conclude an agreement on an interconnected market. Case comment to the judgement of the Supreme Court of 14 January 2009 – Rychwał Commune (Ref. No. III SK 24/08)
title_full	Possible objective justification of a network monopoly’s refusal to conclude an agreement on an interconnected market. Case comment to the judgement of the Supreme Court of 14 January 2009 – Rychwał Commune (Ref. No. III SK 24/08)
title_fullStr	Possible objective justification of a network monopoly’s refusal to conclude an agreement on an interconnected market. Case comment to the judgement of the Supreme Court of 14 January 2009 – Rychwał Commune (Ref. No. III SK 24/08)
title_full_unstemmed	Possible objective justification of a network monopoly’s refusal to conclude an agreement on an interconnected market. Case comment to the judgement of the Supreme Court of 14 January 2009 – Rychwał Commune (Ref. No. III SK 24/08)
title_sort	possible objective justification of a network monopoly’s refusal to conclude an agreement on an interconnected market. case comment to the judgement of the supreme court of 14 january 2009 – rychwał commune (ref. no. iii sk 24/08)
publisher	University of Warsaw
series	Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
issn	1689-9024 2545-0115
publishDate	2010-11-01
description	In the decision RPZ-18/2006 issued on 5 July 2006, the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (hereafter, UOKiK) stated that the practices of the Rychwał Commune constituted an abuse of its dominant position held on the local market for liquid waste services. The practice consisted of the refusal to conclude an agreement with an entrepreneur for the receiving of liquid waste from the residents of the Commune. Rychwał refused to conclude the contract on technical grounds stating that the amount of liquid waste that could be received by their refinery was limited by the amount inflowing through their sanitary sewage system. The Commune invoked also the refinery’s exploitation manual and stressed that the facility’s limits were filled by those entities that were already providing such services in its territory, seeing as the Commune has previously signed several of such contracts with other entities.
url	https://yars.wz.uw.edu.pl/images/yars2010_3_3/Jezewska_Possible_objective_justification_of_a_network_monopolys_refusal.pdf
work_keys_str_mv	AT joannajezewska possibleobjectivejustificationofanetworkmonopolysrefusaltoconcludeanagreementonaninterconnectedmarketcasecommenttothejudgementofthesupremecourtof14january2009rychwałcommunerefnoiiisk2408
_version_	1724435749302960128

Possible objective justification of a network monopoly’s refusal to conclude an agreement on an interconnected market. Case comment to the judgement of the Supreme Court of 14 January 2009 – Rychwał Commune (Ref. No. III SK 24/08)

Similar Items