Cyprus’ Competition Commission rejects telecommunication incumbent’s application for interim measures against HERMES AIRPORTS

The Cyprus Commission for the Protection of Competition (“CPC”) dismissed an application for interim measures by CYTA against Hermes Airports Ltd alleging violations of sections 3 and/or 6 of the Protection of Competition Law 13(I) of 2008 (“Law 13(I)/2008”) – as well as of articles 81 and/or 82 EC.

CYTA’s complaint concerned an alleged prevention of entering the airports under Hermes’ control towards installing equipment necessary in order to provide its telecommunications services. CYTA alleged that Hermes had been pursuing the diversion of telecommunications’ services demand towards CYTA’s competitors, which belong to a parent entity affiliated with Hermes. Moreover, CYTA claimed that Hermes had been pressing CYTA to accept an agreement providing the former a percentage over the latter’s gross income incurred by the provision of telecommunications services within the airports. In this respect CYTA sought the issuing of interim orders prohibiting Hermes to prevent CYTA’s access to the airports, ordering Hermes to allow such access and enter negotiations with CYTA over the amount it shall be charged towards installing its equipment in the airports.

The CPC, in adjudicating whether the conditions laid by s. 28 of Law 13(I)/2008 could be found to exist in the present case, cited rulings of the European Court of Justice  and the Court of First Instance, such as Case 792/79 R, Camera Care Ltd v. Commission,  [1980] ECR 119 and  T-23/90 R, Automobiles Peugeot and Peugeot v. Commission, , [1990] ECR II-195 respectively, towards holding that there need not be a certainty as to the alleged infringement in the case of interim measures, a certainty imperative for reaching a final judgment.