{"title":"Elsam Saga -丹麦法院关于电力供应定价过高的裁决(Elsam III)","authors":"C. Bergqvist, Laurits Schmidt Christensen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2856328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In an August 2016 ruling the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court (So- & Handelsretten) confirmed that the Danish energy incumbent DONG Energy A/S (“DONG”) had infringed Article 102 and the Danish equivalent by charging excessive prices for the delivery of electricity in 2005-06. The judgment pertained to a 2007 decision by the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority (“DCCA”) which had subsequently been challenged by DONG on the basis that DONG was neither dominant nor had acted abusively. In DONG’s view it was merely supplying electricity at market prices and in accordance with commitments agreed with the DCCA in 2003. The case is the first of three inter-related abuse of dominance cases pending before the Danish courts regarding the Danish energy incumbent and its alleged abusive pricing of electricity. The judgment was almost instantly appealed. This comes at little surprise as another of the three cases involves claims for compensation now totaling approximately DKK 8 billion (EURO 1.07 billion). In the light of the magnitude of this compensation claim the legal fees and costs of challenging the underlying abuse cases would appear negligible. The August 2016 ruling is therefore only the first round of a legal battle that is expected to continue for the next couple of years. The case offers an interesting insight into how and how not to apply Article 102 to excessive pricing of electricity, as the DCCA 2007 decision sets out a number of principles in relation to the appropriate legal standards, costs and profits which were all reviewed by the court.","PeriodicalId":388507,"journal":{"name":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Elsam Saga – Danish Court Ruling on Excessive Pricing in Relation to the Delivery of Electricity (ELSAM III)\",\"authors\":\"C. Bergqvist, Laurits Schmidt Christensen\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2856328\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In an August 2016 ruling the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court (So- & Handelsretten) confirmed that the Danish energy incumbent DONG Energy A/S (“DONG”) had infringed Article 102 and the Danish equivalent by charging excessive prices for the delivery of electricity in 2005-06. The judgment pertained to a 2007 decision by the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority (“DCCA”) which had subsequently been challenged by DONG on the basis that DONG was neither dominant nor had acted abusively. In DONG’s view it was merely supplying electricity at market prices and in accordance with commitments agreed with the DCCA in 2003. The case is the first of three inter-related abuse of dominance cases pending before the Danish courts regarding the Danish energy incumbent and its alleged abusive pricing of electricity. The judgment was almost instantly appealed. This comes at little surprise as another of the three cases involves claims for compensation now totaling approximately DKK 8 billion (EURO 1.07 billion). In the light of the magnitude of this compensation claim the legal fees and costs of challenging the underlying abuse cases would appear negligible. The August 2016 ruling is therefore only the first round of a legal battle that is expected to continue for the next couple of years. The case offers an interesting insight into how and how not to apply Article 102 to excessive pricing of electricity, as the DCCA 2007 decision sets out a number of principles in relation to the appropriate legal standards, costs and profits which were all reviewed by the court.\",\"PeriodicalId\":388507,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Energy Law & Policy eJournal\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Energy Law & Policy eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2856328\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Energy Law & Policy eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2856328","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在2016年8月的一项裁决中,丹麦海事和商业高等法院(So- & Handelsretten)确认,丹麦能源公司DONG energy A/S(“DONG”)在2005-06年期间收取过高的电价,违反了第102条和丹麦同等法律。该判决涉及丹麦竞争与消费者管理局(“DCCA”)2007年的一项决定,该决定随后遭到DONG的质疑,理由是DONG既不占主导地位,也没有滥用行为。在DONG看来,它只是按照2003年与DCCA达成的承诺,以市场价格供应电力。该案是丹麦法院审理的三起相互关联的滥用支配地位案件中的第一起,涉及丹麦能源公司及其涉嫌滥用电力定价。判决几乎立即被上诉。这并不令人意外,因为这三起案件中的另一起涉及索赔,目前索赔总额约为80亿丹麦克朗(10.7亿欧元)。鉴于这种赔偿要求的规模,对潜在的虐待案件提出质疑的法律费用和费用似乎可以忽略不计。因此,2016年8月的裁决只是一场官司的第一轮,预计这场官司将在未来几年持续下去。该案件提供了一个有趣的见解,即如何以及如何不将第102条适用于过高的电力定价,因为DCCA 2007年的决定列出了一些与适当的法律标准,成本和利润相关的原则,这些原则都由法院审查。
The Elsam Saga – Danish Court Ruling on Excessive Pricing in Relation to the Delivery of Electricity (ELSAM III)
In an August 2016 ruling the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court (So- & Handelsretten) confirmed that the Danish energy incumbent DONG Energy A/S (“DONG”) had infringed Article 102 and the Danish equivalent by charging excessive prices for the delivery of electricity in 2005-06. The judgment pertained to a 2007 decision by the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority (“DCCA”) which had subsequently been challenged by DONG on the basis that DONG was neither dominant nor had acted abusively. In DONG’s view it was merely supplying electricity at market prices and in accordance with commitments agreed with the DCCA in 2003. The case is the first of three inter-related abuse of dominance cases pending before the Danish courts regarding the Danish energy incumbent and its alleged abusive pricing of electricity. The judgment was almost instantly appealed. This comes at little surprise as another of the three cases involves claims for compensation now totaling approximately DKK 8 billion (EURO 1.07 billion). In the light of the magnitude of this compensation claim the legal fees and costs of challenging the underlying abuse cases would appear negligible. The August 2016 ruling is therefore only the first round of a legal battle that is expected to continue for the next couple of years. The case offers an interesting insight into how and how not to apply Article 102 to excessive pricing of electricity, as the DCCA 2007 decision sets out a number of principles in relation to the appropriate legal standards, costs and profits which were all reviewed by the court.