ACM welcomes opinions about its new draft decision on opportunities for prioritization of projects that contribute to major social objectives in getting connected to the grid
                  

                
                                  






  







  



  
    
              
        
        
      
      
                        
          

Summary

ACM invites stakeholders to submit within 6 weeks their opinions about the new prioritization framework in the draft decision.
The prioritization framework ensures that system operators are able to continue to prioritize projects that contribute to major social objectives such as schools and hospitals.
ACM will process all opinions, and will publish the definitive decision in December 2025.


  

  

    
      
          

      

  


                






        
          

The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) believes it is important that system operators are able to continue to prioritize projects with major social objectives: projects such as schools, hospitals, and police stations can be given priority in getting connected to the grid. That is why ACM has created a new draft decision that is in line with the ruling issued by the highest administrative-law court in the Netherlands. The court ruled that ACM is allowed to draft a framework, but that it must better substantiate the choices it made. Starting today, anyone can submit their opinions about the new prioritization framework laid down in the draft decision. The new prioritization framework will go into effect on January 1, 2026. Until then, the current framework will remain in effect.


Manon Leijten, Member of the Board of ACM, adds: “In order to make sure that system operators are able to continue to prioritize important projects that contribute to major social objectives, we started drafting a new prioritization framework right after the ruling by the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb). We would like to hear from stakeholders what they think of the new framework, so that we can incorporate those opinions into the definitive decision.”


There are many areas in the Netherlands where there is currently insufficient grid capacity to fully meet demand for transport capacity. As a result, waiting lists have emerged for access to the grid. Previously, a spot on the waiting list was only determined by the moment upon which access was requested: first come, first served. In order to give system operators the ability to prioritize projects that contribute to social objectives, ACM established a prioritization framework in 2024. On March 11, 2025, the CBb ruled that ACM must hand down a new decision on this prioritization framework.


The new prioritization framework contains the same three categories of projects that are prioritized. Like in the current framework, the category “congestion softeners” will be given the highest priority in the new framework, because these ensure that everyone will have more grid capacity. The next category that will be given priority is the “security” category. This category contains projects that contribute to national security, such as police stations, hospitals, and projects for water safety. The third category is “basic needs,” such as residential construction, education, and public transport.


For the security and basic-needs categories, ACM re-evaluated all sectors and functions. In order to determine whether a sector is eligible for priority, ACM created evaluation criteria. ACM also asked the Minister of Climate Policy and Green Growth (KGG) for advice about this. A number of new functions were added to both categories. In the security category, these new functions are, for example, companies that are active in the field of very sensitive technologies, power grids, alarm services and alert services, and secured communication channels such as 112 and C2000, and traffic safety. The “basic needs” category has been expanded with collective housing and public transport, for example.


In addition, ACM is considering introducing a hardship clause. This clause offers the ability, in exceptional cases, to prioritize a specific market participant if that is necessary from the perspective of national or regional public interest. For example, extra electricity for safeguarding water safety can, in specific cases, be of greater importance than electricity for other market participants in the security category.


The CBb has given ACM until January 1, 2026 to create a new framework. That period is short. ACM therefore asks stakeholders to submit their opinions about the draft decision within 6 weeks. In this way, ACM will be able to take the opinions into consideration properly when drawing up the definitive decision. ACM has also added three consultation questions to the draft decision. ACM will study all opinions as well as all and answers to the questions, and will take these into consideration when drawing up the definitive decision. ACM will publish this definitive decision in December 2025.
See also

26-06-2025 Draft code amendment decision on opportunities for prioritization of transport requests 2025 (in Dutch)
22-04-2025 ACM is working on a new decision on opportunities for prioritization of projects that contribute to major social objectives in getting connected to the grid | ACM


  

  


    
          
                                          
                                  
                        
                                  
                                
                  

                
          
          
          Publication characteristics
          
                                    
                Publication date
                26-06-2025
              
                      
                                    
                Publication type
                  News

              
                      

                      
              Spokesperson
              
                                    Tjitte Mastenbroek

                              
            
          
                                

          
                      

                                
                                    
                Subjects
                  Energy

Dutch Authority Seeks Feedback on New Grid Project Prioritization Framework

The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) has released a draft decision that outlines a new prioritization framework for grid connection projects. This framework is designed to ensure that system operators can prioritize projects that contribute to significant social objectives, including schools, hospitals, and police stations.

 Stakeholders are encouraged to submit their opinions on the draft decision within a six-week period. The feedback will be considered before the definitive decision is published in December 2025. The new framework is set to take effect on January 1, 2026, while the current framework will remain in place until then.

 ACM's initiative follows a ruling from the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb), which mandated that ACM create a new framework that better substantiates its prioritization choices. The new framework maintains three categories of prioritized projects: 'congestion softeners,' 'security,' and 'basic needs.' The highest priority will be given to congestion softeners, which enhance overall grid capacity.

 In the security category, projects that contribute to national security, such as police stations and hospitals, will be prioritized. The basic needs category includes essential services like residential construction and public transport. ACM has also expanded these categories to include new functions and sectors, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation process.

 Additionally, ACM is considering a hardship clause that would allow for prioritization of specific market participants in exceptional cases, emphasizing the importance of national or regional public interest. The authority is keen to incorporate stakeholder feedback into the final decision to ensure it meets the needs of the community.



ACM welcomes opinions about its new draft decision on opportunities for prioritization of projects that contribute to major social objectives in getting connected to the grid

Budapest, 2025. június 26. – „A mesterséges intelligencia alapjaiban változtathatja meg életünket, ahhoz azonban, hogy ténylegesen a társadalom szolgálatában tegye azt, elmélyült gazdasági, tudományos és állami együttműködésre van szükség” – fejtette ki Rigó Csaba Balázs, a GVH elnöke a Gazdálkodási és Tudományos Társaságok Szövetségének (GTTSZ) konferenciáján, a Budapesti Metropolitan Egyetemen. A rendezvényen résztvevők megvitatták a mesterséges intelligencia lehetséges társadalmi, gazdasági és kulturális hatásait is. A konferencia szakmai diskurzusában kiemelt figyelmet kapott a készülő új MI nemzeti stratégia, mely több ponton is harmonizál a GVH korábbi javaslataival.


Gazdálkodási és Tudományos Társaságok Szövetsége (GTTSZ) és a Budapesti Metropolitan Egyetemjúnius 26-án rendezte meg a „Hogyan tovább Magyarország az Európai Unióban, a globális világban?” című előadássorozat keretében „a Mesterséges intelligencia a társadalom és a gazdaság szolgálatában”című konferenciáját. Az eseményen számos neves szakember, többek között Palkovics László, a mesterséges intelligenciáért felelős kormánybiztos is előadást tartott.


Rigó Csaba Balázs, a GVH elnöke előadásában bemutatta, hogy a Gazdasági Versenyhivatal milyen lépéseket tett az elmúlt években a mesterséges intelligencia mélyreható ás átfogó megismerése, illetve megregulázása érdekében. „Mind a piacelemzésünkkel, mind a Microsofttal szemben lefolytatott eljárásunkkal, az elért kötelezettségvállalással az volt a célunk, hogy tényleges társadalmi értéket teremtő, jövőbe mutató eredményeket tudjunk felmutatni.” – mutatott rá a GVH elnöke.


Rigó Csaba Balázs hangsúlyosan felhívta a figyelmet arra, hogy „a globális technológiai cégek piaci hatalmat gyakorolnak, amit a mesterséges intelligencia alkalmazása csak tovább erősít. Mi fogyasztók az időnkkel, a figyelmükkel és az adatainkkal fizetünk. Ebben az egyre inkább fojtogató helyzetben az állami hatóságoknak – így a GVH-nak is – különösen nagy felelősségük van abban, hogy megvédjék a magyar emberek érdekeit, illetve a hazai kis- és középvállalkozások piacra lépési esélyeit.” – szögezte le a GVH elnöke.


A Gazdasági Versenyhivatal 2024 őszén zárta le piacelemzését, melyben az MI fogyasztókra és piaci versenyre gyakorolt hatásait vizsgálta. Az elemzés keretében több fontos megállapítást is megfogalmaztak a GVH szakértői, emellett pedig számos javaslattal éltek a jogalkotó felé, mely javaslatok több tekintetben is harmonizálnak a hamarosan elfogadásra kerülő új MI nemzeti stratégia megközelítésével. A GVH piacelemzése többek között rámutatott, hogy a mesterséges intelligencia alkalmazása növelheti a hazai kis- és középvállalkozások versenyképességét, illetve a kis nyelvekre, így a magyar nyelvre alapozott öntanuló rendszerek célzott fejlesztése egy ország adatszuverenitása, adatbiztonsága és kulturális identitásának megőrzése miatt kiemelten fontos tényező.


A GVH emellett 2025. május 30-án zárta le a Microsofttal szemben folytatott versenyfelügyeleti eljárását is. A globális technológiai cég az eljárás eredményeként vállalta, hogy 10 milliárd magyar szóból álló – megfelelően előkészített – adatállományon tanítja mesterséges intelligencia alapú rendszereit. Rigó Csaba Balázs ezzel kapcsolatban a csütörtöki konferencián kiemelte: „Célunk, hogy eljárásainkkal, fellépéseinkkel tényleges, a fogyasztók számára is érzékelhető társadalmi hasznot tudjunk teremteni, különösen az olyan nagy technológiai vállalatokkal szembeni ügyekben, melyek kvázi a fogyasztók teljes körére hatással vannak.” Hozzátette: „A Microsoft vállalása jelentősen javítani fogja a magyar fogyasztók felhasználói élményét és megkönnyítheti a hazai kkv-k számára a technológia integrálását mindennapi működésükbe.”


GVH Kommunikáció


Horváth Bálint, kommunikációs vezető +36 20 238 6939


Gondolovics Katalin, sajtószóvivő +36 30 603 1170


Nyomtatható verzió PDF-ben

Hungarian Competition Authority Emphasizes Collaboration for AI's Economic Benefits

On June 26, 2025, Rigó Csaba Balázs, the president of the Hungarian Competition Authority (GVH), spoke at a conference organized by the Association of Economic and Scientific Societies (GTTSZ) at the Budapest Metropolitan University. He emphasized that artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to fundamentally change lives, but achieving its societal benefits requires deep economic, scientific, and governmental collaboration.

 The conference, titled 'How Should Hungary Proceed in the European Union and the Global World?', featured various experts, including László Palkovics, the government commissioner responsible for AI. Discussions focused on the societal, economic, and cultural impacts of AI, with particular attention given to the upcoming national AI strategy, which aligns with previous GVH proposals.

 Balázs outlined the steps the GVH has taken in recent years to understand and regulate AI comprehensively. He noted that their market analysis and the proceedings against Microsoft aimed to create tangible societal value and forward-looking results.

 He also highlighted the market power exerted by global technology companies, which is further amplified by the use of AI. Balázs stressed the responsibility of state authorities, including the GVH, to protect the interests of Hungarian citizens and enhance the market entry opportunities for local small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

 The GVH concluded its market analysis in the fall of 2024, examining the effects of AI on consumers and market competition. The analysis yielded several important findings and recommendations for lawmakers, which align with the forthcoming national AI strategy. It pointed out that AI could enhance the competitiveness of Hungarian SMEs and emphasized the importance of developing self-learning systems based on smaller languages, like Hungarian, for data sovereignty, security, and cultural identity preservation.

 Additionally, on May 30, 2025, the GVH concluded its competition supervision proceedings against Microsoft. As a result, the global tech company committed to training its AI systems on a dataset of 10 billion Hungarian words. Balázs noted that this commitment would significantly improve the user experience for Hungarian consumers and facilitate the integration of technology into the daily operations of local SMEs.



GVH-elnök: „Kiemelten fontos a koordinált együttműködés az MI nemzetgazdasági hasznosulása érdekében”

Press Release 04/2025June 26, 2025The InvestigationThe Portuguese Competition Authority (AdC) has issued a new Statement of Objections concerning anti-competitive practices in the labour market.



The case concerns the inclusion of a no-poach clause — a non-solicitation and/or non-recruitment obligation — in the Code of Ethics of a business association in the employment and human resources sector.This clause prevented member companies from soliciting each other’s temporary workers, thereby restricting worker mobility.The investigation was launched in February 2025. The AdC found evidence that the clause was in effect from 1987 until 25 March 2025.Although the case was opened ex officio, the evidence gathered was further supported by the AdC’s nationwide outreach initiative “20 years, 20 cities – Competition at your doorstep!”, which fosters direct engagement with companies, public entities and citizens across Portugal.The AdC has now concluded the investigation phase and issued a Statement of Objections, thus initiating the formal proceedings.The case is registered under PRC/2025/2 and is public pursuant to Article 32 of the Competition Act.The Statement of ObjectionsWhen, following an investigation, the AdC finds reasonable grounds to suspect an infringement of competition law, it issues a Statement of Objections.During the ongoing procedural phase, the association concerned — which benefits from the presumption of innocence — is entitled to exercise its rights of defence, including the right to be heard on the facts, the evidence gathered, and any potential sanction.Following this phase, the AdC may adopt a final decision.



The Practice at StakeThe investigated conduct constitutes a decision by an association of undertakings, whereby a no-poach clause was adopted in the association’s Code of Ethics.Such clauses or agreements are prohibited by law, as they restrict companies’ freedom to hire and directly harm workers by limiting their mobility, bargaining power and wage progression.In September 2021, the AdC published a Best Practices Guide with recommendations to help companies and associations avoid these types of agreements.Restrictions on competition in the labour market harm competitiveness, undermine worker welfare, and negatively affect the national economy.As such, tackling anti-competitive labour market practices is among the AdC’s Competition Policy Priorities for 2025, with the aim of safeguarding the proper functioning of the labour market and defending the interests of citizens.What is a no-poach agreement?No-poach agreements, or non-solicitation pacts, are arrangements between companies not to hire or directly approach each other’s workers. These agreements — prohibited under competition law — restrict companies’ autonomy in shaping their human resources policies and may occur across all sectors of the economy.Since 2020, the AdC has strengthened its enforcement in this area and has already issued five infringement decisions concerning no-poach practices.In 2021, it published a Report and Best Practices Guide to assist companies and associations in identifying and preventing such illegal conduct.The AdC has been at the forefront of competition enforcement in labour markets at European level.

Portuguese Competition Authority Targets No-Poach Clauses in Labour Market

The Portuguese Competition Authority (AdC) has taken significant action by issuing a new Statement of Objections related to anti-competitive practices in the labour market. This case revolves around a no-poach clause included in the Code of Ethics of a business association in the employment and human resources sector, which prohibited member companies from soliciting each other’s temporary workers, thereby limiting worker mobility.

 The investigation, which began in February 2025, revealed that this no-poach clause had been in effect since 1987 until its recent removal on March 25, 2025. The AdC's findings were bolstered by evidence collected during its nationwide outreach initiative, “20 years, 20 cities – Competition at your doorstep!”, aimed at engaging with various stakeholders across Portugal.

 With the investigation phase now concluded, the AdC has formally initiated proceedings by issuing a Statement of Objections. This document indicates that the AdC has reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of competition law. The association involved is entitled to defend itself during this procedural phase, which includes the right to contest the facts and evidence presented against it.

 The no-poach clause in question represents a decision made by an association of companies, which is illegal as it restricts the freedom of companies to hire and adversely affects workers by limiting their mobility and bargaining power. The AdC has emphasized that such restrictions harm competitiveness and worker welfare, ultimately impacting the national economy.

 As part of its commitment to combat anti-competitive practices in the labour market, the AdC has made this issue a priority in its Competition Policy for 2025. The authority has previously published a Best Practices Guide to help companies avoid entering into such illegal agreements. Since 2020, the AdC has intensified its enforcement efforts in this area, having already issued five infringement decisions related to no-poach practices.



AdC issues new Statement of Objections over anti-competitive practices in the labour market
AdC issues new Statement of Objections over anti-competitive practices in the labour market

Konkurransetilsynet har siden 2021 etterforsket to flyttebyråer på grunn av mistanke om ulovlig samarbeid. Tilsynet har besluttet å avslutte saken.


Våren 2024 sendte Konkurransetilsynet varsel om pålegg om opphør av samarbeidet og ileggelse av overtredelsesgebyr. Begge flyttebyråene innga etter dette merknader til varslene.


– Etter en helthetsvurdering av ulike forhold i saken har Konkurransetilsynet kommet til at saken nå legges vekk, sier avdelingsdirektør Marita Mæland Skjæveland.
															
				
										

Publisert: 26.06.2025
					

Del på:Del på facebookDel på twitterDel på epostSkriv ut

Norwegian Competition Authority Closes Investigation into Moving Companies

Since 2021, the Norwegian competition authority has been investigating two moving companies due to suspicions of unlawful cooperation. The authority has now decided to terminate the investigation.

 In spring 2024, the competition authority issued a warning regarding the cessation of the alleged collaboration and proposed a fine. Following this, both moving companies submitted their comments on the warnings.

 After a comprehensive assessment of various factors in the case, the competition authority has concluded that it will now close the matter, as stated by department director Marita Mæland Skjæveland.



Avslutter etterforskningssak mot flyttebyråer



 
Communications Directorate 
Press and Information Unit curia.europa.eu 
 
 
 
PRESS RELEASE No 77/25 
Luxembourg, 26 June 2025 
Judgments of the Court in Joined Cases C-464/23 P, C-465/23 P, C-467/23 P, C-468/23 P and C-470/23 P | 
EVH and Others v Commission and in Cases C-466/23 P | Stadtwerke Hameln Weserbergland, 
C-469/23 P | eins energie in sachsen, C-484/23 P | Mainova and C-485/23 P | enercity v Commission 
The Court of Justice confirms, as previously done so by the General Court, 
the Commission’s approval of the acquisition of certain E.ON generation 
assets by RWE 
In March 2018, the German energy companies RWE and E.ON, which are active in several European countries, 
announced that they wanted to engage in a complex asset swap by means of three concentration operations. 
By the first concentration operation, RWE wished to acquire sole or joint control over certain generation assets of 
E.ON. The second concentration operation consisted in the acquisition by E.ON of the sole control over the 
distribution and retail energy business, as well as certain generation assets of Innogy, a subsidiary of RWE. As for the 
third concentration operation, it concerned the acquisition of 16.67% of E.ON’s shares by RWE. 
The first and second concentration operations were reviewed and authorised by the European Commission, 
1
 while 
the third concentration operation was reviewed and authorised by the Federal Competition Authority, Germany. 
Eleven German municipal authorities challenged the two Commission approval decisions before the General Court 
of the European Union. 
By judgments of 17 May 2023, the General Court dismissed the actions challenging the approval of the first 
operation (acquisition of generation assets of E.ON by RWE), some on the substance and others on grounds of 
inadmissibility. 
2
 The General Court observed that an asset swap between independent undertakings did not 
constitute a ‘single concentration.’ It also held that the Commission had not made any manifest errors in its 
assessment of the compatibility of that first concentration with EU competition law. 
Next, by judgments of 20 December 2023, the General Court dismissed the actions of the municipal authorities 
challenging the approval of the second concentration operation (acquisition of the distribution and retail energy 
business as well as certain generation assets of Innogy by E.ON). 
3
 The General Court again confirmed that an asset 
swap between independent undertakings did not constitute a ‘single concentration.’ Nor had the Commission made 
any manifest errors in its assessment of the compatibility of that second concentration with EU competition law. 
Nine of the 11 municipal authorities brought appeals before the Court of Justice against the judgments of the 
General Court of 17 May 
4
 and 20 December 2023. 
5
 
By its judgment in EVH and Others, the Court of Justice dismisses five of the nine appeals brought against the 
judgments of the General Court of 17 May 2023, delivered on the substance, and thus confirms, as did the 
General Court, the Commission’s approval of the first concentration operation (acquisition of generation 
assets of E.ON by RWE). The Court of Justice confirms, in particular, that an asset swap between independent 
undertakings does not constitute a ‘single concentration.’ 

      
Communications Directorate 
Press and Information Unit curia.europa.eu 
By contrast, by its four other judgments delivered today, the Court of Justice sets aside four judgments of the 
General Court of 17 May 2023 by which the General Court had dismissed the respective actions as inadmissible on 
the ground that the municipal authorities in question were not individually concerned by the Commission’s approval 
of the first operation (acquisition of generation assets of E.ON by RWE). The Court of Justice notes that those 
municipal authorities had put forward certain arguments relating to the allegedly substantial effect on their market 
position following that operation. However, according to the Court of Justice, the General Court failed to fulfil its 
obligation to state reasons by not providing any statement of reasons, not even a brief one, to make it possible to 
understand whether those arguments were examined and, if so, why they were considered to be incapable of 
establishing such an effect. 
However, giving final judgment itself in the four disputes in question, the Court of Justice finds, after 
examining those arguments, that the four municipal authorities have not established that their market position was 
substantially affected by the operation concerned. Consequently, they have not established that they are 
individually concerned by the relevant Commission decision. The Court of Justice therefore dismisses, as the 
General Court did, the four actions as inadmissible. 
The appeals brought against the judgments of the General Court of 20 December 2023 concerning the 
Commission’s approval of the second concentration operation (the acquisition of the distribution and retail energy 
business as well as certain generation assets of Innogy by E.ON) are pending before the Court of Justice. 
 
Municipal 
authority 
Actions before 
the General 
Court 
concerning the 
first 
concentration 
operation 
Appeals before 
the Court of 
Justice against 
the judgments of 
the General Court 
relating to the 
first 
concentration 
operation 
Actions before 
the General 
Court 
concerning the 
second 
concentration 
operation 
Appeals before 
the Court of 
Justice against 
the judgments of 
the General Court 
relating to the 
second 
concentration 
operation 
EVH T-312/20 C-464/23 P T-53/21 C-171/24 P 
Stadtwerke Leipzig T-313/20 C-465/23 P T-55/21 C-172/24 P 
Stadtwerke Hameln 
Weserbergland 
T-314/20 C-466/23 P T-58/21 C-174/24 P 
TEAG T-315/20 C-467/23 P T-56/21 C-173/24 P 
Naturstrom T-316/20 -- T-60/21 -- 
EnergieVerbund 
Dresden  
T-317/20 C-468/23 P T-61/21 C-176/24 P 
eins energie in 
sachsen  
T-318/20 C-469/23 P T-59/21 C-175/24 P 
GGEW T-319/20 C-470/23 P T-62/21 C-177/24 P 

      
Communications Directorate 
Press and Information Unit curia.europa.eu 
Stay Connected! 
Mainova T-320/20 C-484/23 P T-64/21 C-178/24 P 
enercity T-321/20 C-485/23 P T-65/21 C-179/24 P 
Stadtwerke 
Frankfurt am Main  
T-322/20 -- T-63/21 -- 
 
NOTE: An appeal, on a point or points of law only, may be brought before the Court of Justice against a judgment or 
order of the General Court. In principle, the appeal does not have suspensive effect. If the appeal is admissible and 
well founded, the Court of Justice sets aside the judgment of the General Court. Where the state of the proceedings 
so permits, the Court of Justice may itself give final judgment in the case. Otherwise, it refers the case back to the 
General Court, which is bound by the decision given by the Court of Justice on the appeal. 
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice. 
The full text and, as the case may be, an abstract of the judgments (C-464/23 P, C-466/23 P, C-469/23 P, C-484/23 P 
and C-485/23 P) is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery. 
Press contact: Jacques René Zammit ✆  (+352) 4303 3355. 
 
 
 
 
1
 Decision  C(2019)  1711  final  of 26 February 2019  declaring  a  concentration  compatible  with  the  internal  market  and  the  EEA  Agreement  (Case 
M.8871 – RWE/E.ON Assets) and Decision C(2019) 6530 final of 17 September 2019 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the internal market 
and the EEA Agreement (Case M.8870 – E.ON/Innogy); see also Commission press releases IP/19/1432 and IP/19/5582. 
2
 Judgments of 17 May 2023, EVH v Commission, T-312/20, Stadtwerke Leipzig v Commission, T-313/20, Stadtwerke Hameln Weserbergland v Commission, 
T-314/20, TEAG v Commission, T-315/20, Naturstrom v Commission, T-316/20, EnergieVerbund Dresden v Commission, T-317/20, eins energie in sachsen v 
Commission, T-318/20, GGEW v Commission, T-319/20, Mainova v Commission, T-320/20, enercity v Commission, T-321/20 and Stadtwerke Frankfurt  am 
Main v Commission, T-322/20; see also press releases Nos 81/23 and 82/23. 
3
 Judgments  of  20  December  2023 EVH v Commission, T-53/21, Stadtwerke Leipzig v Commission, T-55/21, TEAG v Commission, T-56/21, Stadtwerke 
Hameln Weserbergland v Commission, T-58/21, eins energie in sachsen v Commission, T-59/21, Naturstrom v Commission, T-60/21, EnergieVerbund Dresden 
v Commission, T-61/21, GGEW v Commission, T-62/21, Stadtwerke Frankfurt am Main v Commission, T-63/21, Mainova v Commission, T-64/21, and enercity 
v Commission, T-65/21; see also press release No 197/23. 
4
 See the municipal authorities listed at the beginning of the press release. For an overview of the cases, see the table above. 
5
 See the table above. 

EU Court Upholds RWE-E.ON Asset Swap Approvals

The Court of Justice of the European Union has delivered judgments in several cases concerning the approval of asset swaps between German energy companies RWE and E.ON. The court upheld the European Commission's decisions regarding the acquisition of E.ON's generation assets by RWE, affirming that these transactions do not constitute a 'single concentration' under EU competition law.

 In March 2018, RWE and E.ON announced a complex asset swap involving three concentration operations. The first operation involved RWE acquiring control over certain generation assets of E.ON, while the second operation saw E.ON gaining control over the distribution and retail energy business of Innogy, a subsidiary of RWE. The third operation involved RWE acquiring a stake in E.ON. The first two operations were approved by the European Commission, while the third was authorized by the German Federal Competition Authority.

 Following the approvals, eleven German municipal authorities challenged the Commission's decisions in the General Court of the European Union. The General Court dismissed these challenges, stating that the asset swaps did not constitute a single concentration and that the Commission had not erred in its assessments.

 Subsequently, nine of the municipal authorities appealed to the Court of Justice. The Court dismissed five of these appeals, confirming the General Court's ruling on the first concentration operation. However, it set aside four judgments from the General Court that had dismissed actions as inadmissible, noting that the General Court failed to adequately address the municipal authorities' arguments regarding the impact on their market positions.

 Ultimately, the Court of Justice found that the municipal authorities did not demonstrate a substantial effect on their market positions due to the asset swap, leading to the dismissal of their actions as inadmissible. Appeals regarding the second concentration operation are still pending.



Judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases C-464/23 P, C-465/23 P, C-467/23 P, C-468/23 P, C-470/23 P, C-466/23 P, C-469/23 P, C-484/23 P, C-485/23 P

Prezes UOKiK wszczął wobec spółki P4, właściciela sieci Play, postępowanie w sprawie stosowania niedozwolonych postanowień umownych.
                                                                    Sprawdzi również, czy operator sieci komórkowej wprowadzając do umów z klientami opłaty za utrzymanie numeru w ofertach pre-paid naruszył zbiorowe interesy konsumentów.
                                                                    Spółce grozi kara do 10 proc. obrotu.
                                    
                        
            

         Wypowiedź Prezesa UOKiK Tomasza Chróstnego 

Spółka P4 zaczęła pobierać od klientów korzystających z ofert „Play na Kartę OdNowa” oraz „Play na Kartę 3.0" opłatę za utrzymanie numeru. Została ona wprowadzona do umowy jednostronnie, pomimo braku podstawy ustawowej czy klauzuli upoważniającej spółkę do wprowadzania takich zmian i może stanowić naruszenie zbiorowych interesów konsumentów.

Kwestionowana opłata wynosi do 5 zł i naliczana jest konsumentom, którzy nie wykonają w miesięcznym cyklu rozliczeniowym aktywności zdefiniowanych przez spółkę. W praktyce oznacza to, że mogą nią być obciążeni w każdym miesiącu, nawet jeżeli korzystają z zakupionych pakietów lub usług albo odbierają połączenia. W ocenie Prezesa Urzędu postanowienia te mogą być sprzeczne z dobrymi obyczajami i rażąco naruszać interesy konsumentów.Opłata za brak korzystania w „aktywny” sposób

Istotą ofert w systemie przedpłaconym jest swoboda dysponowania środkami pieniężnymi w zależności od potrzeb. Decyzja o dodatkowym zasileniu konta czy zakupie dodatkowych usług nie może wynikać z nacisku ze strony ich dostawcy.

Taka sytuacja ma miejsce w przypadku klientów sieci Play, którzy skarżyli się m.in. na to, że „obecna konstrukcja opłaty za utrzymanie numeru w kontekście taryfy OdNowa to (…) przymuszanie do kupowania i korzystania oraz zbierania (…) usług Play, które nie są konieczne, a w zasadzie są zbędne!”.

– Presja związana z ryzykiem naliczania opłat za utrzymanie numeru w kolejnych cyklach rozliczeniowych może sprawić, że konsumenci będą korzystać z usług w większym zakresie niż wynikałoby to z ich rzeczywistych potrzeb. Innymi słowy, konsumenci, chcąc zapobiec pobraniu środków znajdujących się na koncie, mogą podejmować aktywności, których nie podjęliby, gdyby nie zastosowane postanowienia umowne – mówi Prezes UOKiK Tomasz Chróstny.Utrzymanie numeru to dodatkowa usługa?

Wątpliwości Prezesa UOKiK budzi fakt, że spółka P4 nadała „utrzymaniu numeru” walor osobnej usługi, pomimo że przydzielenie i utrzymanie numeru jest niezbędnym elementem składowym usługi telekomunikacyjnej i obowiązkiem operatora.

– Play tłumaczy swoim klientom, że w opłacie za „utrzymanie numeru” mieści się przydzielenie numeru telefonu, zapewnienie jego działania w sieci, pozostawanie w gotowości do świadczenia usług, zapewnienie obsługi klienta oraz możliwości odbierania połączeń, SMS-ów i MMS-ów oraz korzystania z innych usług bez odrębnej opłaty. Pomija przy tym fakt, że niektóre z wymienionych to obowiązki operatora wynikające z faktu zawarcia umowy o świadczenie usług telekomunikacyjnych. To mniej więcej tak, jakby taksówkarz do rachunku za przejazd doliczał dodatkowo koszt raty leasingowej, tankowania, ubezpieczenia czy przeglądu technicznego pojazdu – zauważa Prezes Urzędu.

Spółka P4 ma w swojej ofercie również oferty na kartę, w których nie występują opłaty za utrzymanie numeru, a obsługa klienta jest nadal zapewniona.Nie tylko Play

Postępowanie wobec operatora sieci Play to nie jedyne działania UOKiK dotyczące dodatkowych opłat dla konsumentów korzystających z telekomunikacyjnych usług na kartę. Prezes UOKiK postawił zarzuty także Orange Polska. Jeśli postawione zarzuty się potwierdzą, spółkom grozi kara w wysokości do 10 proc. obrotu.

W podobnej sprawie toczy się także postępowanie wyjaśniające wobec spółki Polkomtel.
    
                                    
                                                
                                                
                                                
                        


      Poprzednie zdjęcie 
     Następne zdjęcie

Polish Authority Investigates Play for Potential Consumer Rights Violations

The President of the Polish competition authority has launched an investigation into P4, the company behind the Play mobile network, regarding the use of unlawful contractual provisions. The authority will examine whether the mobile operator's introduction of fees for maintaining phone numbers in prepaid contracts violates collective consumer interests.

P4 has begun charging customers using the 'Play na Kartę OdNowa' and 'Play na Kartę 3.0' plans a fee of up to 5 PLN for maintaining their phone numbers. This fee was unilaterally introduced into contracts without a legal basis or a clause authorizing such changes, which may constitute a violation of collective consumer interests.

Customers are charged this fee if they do not perform specific activities defined by the company within a monthly billing cycle, even if they are using purchased packages or receiving calls. The authority's president believes these provisions may contradict good practices and significantly harm consumer interests.

The essence of prepaid offers is the freedom to manage funds according to individual needs. The decision to top up accounts or purchase additional services should not be pressured by the provider. Customers have complained that the current structure of the number maintenance fee forces them to buy and use unnecessary services from Play.

The risk of incurring fees for maintaining numbers in subsequent billing cycles may lead consumers to use services more than they actually need. To avoid losing funds, consumers might engage in activities they would not otherwise pursue if not for these contractual provisions.

Concerns have also been raised about P4 treating 'number maintenance' as a separate service, despite it being an essential component of telecommunications services and an operator's obligation. The president of the authority likened this to a taxi driver charging extra for leasing, fuel, insurance, or maintenance costs.

P4 also offers prepaid plans without number maintenance fees, where customer service is still provided. The investigation into Play is part of broader actions by the Polish competition authority regarding additional fees for consumers using prepaid telecommunications services. Similar charges have also been raised against Orange Polska, and if confirmed, both companies could face fines of up to 10% of their turnover.

Additionally, an explanatory proceeding is underway against Polkomtel regarding similar issues.



Navigate Antitrust with Unmatched Precision

Access targeted antitrust updates and understand their implications for your company.

Latest Updates

Dutch Authority Seeks Feedback on New Grid Project Prioritization Framework

Hungarian Competition Authority Emphasizes Collaboration for AI's Economic Benefits

Portuguese Competition Authority Targets No-Poach Clauses in Labour Market

Norwegian Competition Authority Closes Investigation into Moving Companies

EU Court Upholds RWE-E.ON Asset Swap Approvals

Polish Authority Investigates Play for Potential Consumer Rights Violations

Antitrust Feed

Relevance Radar

Made For Business

How is this useful?

Interested in Relevance Radar?

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the Antitrust Feed?

Q: How does the Relevance Radar work?

Q: How can PolicyPulse.pro benefit my business?

About Us

Contact Us