

 
Communications Directorate 
Press and Information Unit curia.europa.eu 
 
 
 
PRESS RELEASE No 19/25 
Luxembourg, 25 February 2025 
Judgment of the Court in Case C-233/23 | Alphabet and Others 
A refusal by an undertaking in a dominant position to ensure that its 
platform is interoperable with an app of another undertaking, which 
thereby becomes more attractive, can be abusive 
The refusal can be justified by the fact that there is no template for the category of apps concerned, where to 
grant interoperability would compromise the security or integrity of the platform 
The refusal by an undertaking in a dominant position, which has developed a digital platform, to allow access to that 
platform, by refusing to ensure that that platform is interoperable with an app developed by a third-party, can 
constitute an abuse of a dominant position, even though the platform is not indispensable to the commercial 
operation of the app. Such abuse may be found where the platform has been developed with a view to enabling 
third-parties to use it and where it is such as to make the app more attractive to consumers. The refusal can 
however be justified by the fact that there is no template for the category of apps concerned at the time of the 
access request by the third-party undertaking, where to grant such interoperability would compromise the security 
or the integrity of the platform, or where it would be impossible for other technical reasons to ensure that 
interoperability. Otherwise, the dominant undertaking must develop such a template, within a period which is 
reasonable and necessary for that purpose and in return for, depending on the circumstances, appropriate financial 
consideration. 
In 2018, Enel 
1
 launched, in Italy, the JuicePass app, which enables drivers to find and reserve charging stations for 
their electric vehicles. In order to facilitate navigation to such charging stations, Enel requested Google 
2
 to make the 
app compatible with Android Auto, Google’s system which makes it possible to access smartphone apps directly on 
the vehicle’s onboard screen. Third party developers can adapt their apps to Android Auto using templates provided 
by Google. Google refused to take the action necessary to ensure JuicePass would be interoperable with Android 
Auto 
3
. The Competition and Market Authority, Italy (AGCM), therefore imposed a fine of more than €102 million on 
Google, finding that that behaviour constituted an abuse of a dominant position. Google disputed that decision 
before the Council of State, Italy, which made a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice. 
The Court finds that the refusal by an undertaking in a dominant position which has developed a digital 
platform, to ensure that that platform is interoperable with an app developed by a third-party undertaking 
can constitute an abuse of a dominant position.  
Such an abuse of a dominant position is not limited to the situation where the platform is indispensable for 
carrying on the business of the entity applying for access 
4
. There can also be abuse where, as appears to be 
the situation in the present case, the undertaking in a dominant position did not develop the platform solely 
for the needs of its own business, but with a view to enabling third-party undertakings to use it and where 
that platform is not indispensable for the commercial operation of an app developed by a third-party 
undertaking but is such as to make that app more attractive to consumers 
5
. 

 
Communications Directorate 
Press and Information Unit curia.europa.eu 
Stay Connected! 
The refusal of access can have anticompetitive effects even if the third-party undertaking which developed the app 
and its competitors continued to be active on the market to which that app belongs and grew their position on that 
market without benefitting from interoperability with that platform. It is necessary, in that regard, to assess whether 
the refusal was such as to hinder competition on the market concerned being maintained or to hinder its growth, 
taking into account all the relevant factual circumstances. 
The refusal by an undertaking in a dominant position to ensure that an app is interoperable with a digital platform 
may be justified by the fact that there is no template for the category of apps concerned and where to grant such 
interoperability by means of such a template would compromise the integrity or security of the platform concerned, 
or where it would be impossible for other technical reasons to ensure interoperability by developing such a 
template. 
However, if that is not the case, the undertaking in a dominant position must develop such a template 
within a reasonable period, in return for, depending on the circumstances, appropriate financial consideration. In 
that context, it is necessary to take account of the needs of the third-party undertaking which requested that 
development, the actual cost of the development and the right of the undertaking in a dominant position to derive 
an appropriate benefit from it. 
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which 
have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European 
Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the 
national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on 
other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised. 
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice. 
The full text, and as the case may be, the abstract of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of 
delivery.  
Press contact: Jacques René Zammit ✆  (+352) 4303 3355. 
Pictures of the delivery of the judgment are available from "Europe by Satellite" ✆  (+32) 2 2964106. 
 
 
 
 
1
 More specifically, Enel X Italia, which is part of the Enel group, and which manages more than 60 % of the charging stations available for electric 
motor vehicles in Italy and provides services for such charging. 
2
 Google Italy Srl is the Italian subsidiary of Google LLC, which, in turn, is owned by Alphabet Inc. The three undertakings together are referred to as 
Google.  
3
 First of all, Google stated, in so far as there was no specific template, that multimedia and messaging apps were the only third-party apps 
compatible with Android Auto. Google later justified its refusal on the basis of security concerns and the need to allocate, in a rational manner, the 
resources necessary for the creation of a new template. 
4
 Condition set out by the Court in the judgment of 26 November 1998, Bronner, C-7/97 (see also press release No 72/98). 
5
 In such a situation, neither the preservation of the freedom of contract and the right to property of the undertaking in a dominant position nor the 
need for that undertaking to continue to have an incentive to invest in developing high-quality products or services justify limiting a refusal to provide 
access to the infrastructure in question to a third-party undertaking from being classified as abusive in situations in which the ‘Bronner’ condition, 
relating to the indispensability to the carrying on of the business of the entity requesting access, is satisfied. 

EU Court Rules on Dominant Platforms and Interoperability Obligations

The Court of Justice of the European Union has delivered a significant judgment in Case C-233/23, addressing the responsibilities of dominant digital platforms regarding interoperability with third-party applications. The ruling clarifies that a refusal by a dominant undertaking to allow access to its platform, thereby hindering interoperability with an app developed by another company, can be deemed abusive under EU competition law.

 The case arose when Enel, an Italian company, sought to make its JuicePass app compatible with Google’s Android Auto system. Google denied this request, claiming that there was no existing template for such apps and citing security concerns. The Italian Competition and Market Authority subsequently fined Google over €102 million for abusing its dominant position.

 The Court emphasized that the refusal to grant interoperability could still be considered abusive even if the platform is not indispensable for the app's commercial operation. The ruling noted that if a platform is developed with the intention of enabling third-party use, its refusal to provide access could hinder competition, regardless of the app's market performance without that interoperability.

 However, the Court also acknowledged that such refusals could be justified under certain conditions, such as the absence of a template for the app category or potential security risks. If these justifications do not hold, the dominant undertaking is required to develop a template within a reasonable timeframe, potentially in exchange for financial compensation.



EU Court Rules on Dominant Platforms and Interoperability Obligations

The Court of Justice of the EU has ruled that a dominant platform's refusal to ensure interoperability with third-party apps can constitute an abuse of its dominant position, even if the platform is not essential for the app's operation.