Page 5 - Bulletin No. 23 - Free Competition

BULLETIN 5 / PRESENT

Free Competition
PANAMA
Case against CABLE ONDA, S.A.

The National Direction of Free Competition (hereinafter agreements with building developers, business premises
DNLC), of ACODECO started by complaint, by the legal owners and executive boards and / or assemblies of
representative of the company INTERFAST PANAMA, a owners of horizontal properties or with any natural or
telecommunication service concessionaire, a preliminary legal person that have the purpose of granting exclusive
investigation against CABLE ONDA, S.A. (CO), for the rights for the provision of such services or grant the
alleged commission of relative monopolistic practices, administration of the telecommunications infrastructure
contained in Law 45 of October 31, 2007 (hereinafter Law of buildings with powers that allow limiting the access of
45), to the detriment of INTERFAST and its clients. other concessionaires to these facilities.

Based on the documentation provided to the file, the Regarding the relevant market, this is defined as “the
DNLC considered that there were indications of the access service to all telecommunications networks and the
possible realization of a relative monopolistic practice, by elements and of the civil works that support them
the economic agents CO, Commercial Center Developers, necessary for the installation of the optical fiber present in
Inc. y Roble International Corporation, S.A., through an the P.H. Multiplaza Pacific”.
exclusivity agreement that would be unreasonably
preventing access to an essential facility to potential Taking into consideration that the set of
competitors in the market. telecommunication networks and the elements of the
civil works that support them, installed in buildings,
Through Resolution No. DNLC HCE-016-17 of July 24, commercial premises, and / or horizontal properties,
2017, the DNLC decided to order the official opening of constitute common telecommunications infrastructures,
the administrative investigation by the alleged declared as essential facilities by Resolution 1630, and
commission of relative monopolistic practice, against CO, that this essential facility was the one that could be
Commercial Center Developers, Inc. y Roble International subject to some type of restrictions.
Corporation, S.A., violation of numerals 5 and 9, article 16
of Law 45, which states, “5 The unilateral action consisting The investigation and documentation in the file do not
in refusing to sell or provide, to certain people, available show actions by the economic agents investigated, in the
goods, or services normally offered to third parties, direction of refusal to provide goods or services available
unless there is a breach by the client or potential client of and normally available to third parties, prevent or restrict
contractual obligations with the economic agent, or that access to the company INTERFAST, but quite the opposite;
the commercial history of the client or potential client a refusal of INTERFAST not to pay for access to the
demonstrate a high rate of returns or damaged goods”. pipelines of the P.H.

“9. In general, any act that unreasonably damages or For the reasons stated, the DNLC through Resolution No.
prevents the process of free economic competition and DNLC-MAC-001-2020 of January 31, 2020 orders the
the free participation in the production, processing, closing and filing of the administrative file for not having
distribution, supply or marketing of goods or services. ” sufficient evidence to prove the violation of numerals 5
and 9 of the article 16 of Law 45.
The National Authority of Public Services by Resolution
AN No. 1630-Telco of April 21, 2008 (Resolution 1630),
which adopts special measures related to the right of
users to access services public telecommunications orders
all telecommunication public service concessionaires to
refrain from entering into agreements, contracts or