In the following, this paper will not simply cite the Commission’s explanation regarding the assessment criteria for SMP, but examine Commission decisions made according to Article 7 of Framework Directive in order to detect how the Commission apply the concept of SMP in concrete cases and, if possible, to discover the distinction between SMP and dominance.
　　II. Two Commission Veto Decisions
　　Both veto decisions concerns the draft measures proposed by Viestintävirasto, Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority (Ficora). The Commission raised serious doubt on the two draft measures and required Ficora to withdraw them finally.
　　1. Cases FI/2003/0024 and FI/2003/0027
　　A. The Contested Draft Measures
　　In this case, Ficora submitted that there are no SMP operators in markets for publicly available international telephone services provided at a fixed location for residential and non-residential customers in Finland, despite the large market shares of TeliaSonera Finland Oyj (TeliaSonera) (i.e. about 55% of the residential market and about 50% of the non-residential market).
　　B. Arguments of Ficora
　　Ficora bases its findings on three factors: (1) actual competition (approximately 10 alternatives provides), (2) low barriers to entry, and (3) countervailing buying power.
　　C. Assessment of the Commission
　　The fact of the significant drop, or substantial decrease, in the market shares can indicate the market concerned is competitive and therefore no SMP on this market. But Ficora failed to satisfy the Commission with regard to this condition. Another indicator of a dynamic competition is the persisting decrease of price in the market. However, Ficora’s analysis did not convince the Commission either. In addition, Ficora did not provide information about the active undertakings’ ability to have access to capital markets/financial resources, the profitability and cost structure, and the distribution and sales network of undertakings active in the market.

第 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] 页 共[7]页