الإطار القانوني لرفض ترخيص استخدام المرافق الحيوية في فلسطين: دراسة مقارنة

Kawther Nizam Amraish; Mohammed Alqaisi

doi:10.35516/Law.2026.13200

Authors

Kawther Nizam Amraish Department of Law, Faculty of Law and Public Administration, Birzeit University, Palestine. https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5009-6176
Mohammed Alqaisi Department of Law, Faculty of Law and Public Administration, Birzeit University, Palestine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9046-2203

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35516/Law.2026.13200

Keywords:

Essential Facilities Doctrine, Refusal to Deal, Refusal to License, Abuse of Dominant Position, Competition Law.

Abstract

Objectives: This study examines the European Union’s experience in regulating the Essential Facilities Doctrine, particularly in light of the recent enactment of competition law in Palestine. It conceptualizes the Essential Facilities Doctrine both as a form of refusal to deal and as an abuse of a dominant position. The study further clarifies when a refusal to grant licenses for the use of essential facilities constitutes a violation of competition law, and when it is regarded as a legitimate exercise of the principle of freedom of contract.

Methods: The study adopts a comparative descriptive-analytical approach. It analyzes the regulatory framework governing the Essential Facilities Doctrine in the European Union and compares it with the provisions of Palestinian Decree-Law No. (11) of 2025 on Competition, as well as with the instructions on competition safeguards in the telecommunications sector in Palestine.

Results: The study finds that the Palestinian Competition Law clearly regulates abuses of a dominant position, while leaving the detailed regulation of specific practices to implement instructions that have yet to be issued. By contrast, the Competition Protection Instructions in the telecommunications sector are found to be unclear and in need of revision to ensure consistency with the law.

Conclusions: The study concludes that the Palestinian legislator should adopt detailed implementing instructions for the Competition Law, given their importance in ensuring fair competition. It also highlights certain European legal standards on the Essential Facilities Doctrine that could be adapted to the Palestinian legal framework.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alqaisi, M. (2013). Towards a proper legal framework for regulating abuse of dominant position in the occupied Palestinian territory (Doctoral dissertation, Vrije Universiteit).

Castaldo, A., & Antonio, N. (2005, September 15–17). Essential facility access in Europe: Building a test for antitrust policy. The European Association of Law and Economics Conference, Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Cotter, T. (2008). The essential facilities doctrine. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1125368

Court of First Instance (First Chamber). (1992). Cases T-68/89, T-77/89 and T-78/89, Società Italiana Vetro SpA, Fabbrica Pisana SpA and PPG Vernante Pennitalia SpA v Commission of the European Communities.

Dacar, R. (2023). The essential facilities doctrine, intellectual property rights, and access to big data. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 54, 1487–1507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-023-01396-7

European Commission. (1993). IV/34.689 Sea Containers v. Stena Sealink.

European Commission. (1997). Commission notice on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of Community competition law (97/C 372/03). Official Journal of the European Communities.

European Commission. (1998). Notice on the application of the competition rules to access agreements in the telecommunications sector: Framework, relevant markets and principles.

European Commission. (2004). COMP/C-3/37.792 Microsoft v. Sun Microsystems.

European Commission. (2005). DG Competition discussion paper on the application of Article 82 of the Treaty to exclusionary abuses.

European Commission. (2007). Roundtable on refusal to deal: Note by the European Commission.

European Commission. (2009). Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings (2009/C 45/02).

European Court of Justice. (1974). Case 6/73 Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano S.p.A. & Commercial Solvents Corp. v Commission of the European Communities.

European Court of Justice. (1978a). Case 27/76 United Brands Company & United Brands Continental BV v Commission of the European Communities.

European Court of Justice. (1978b). Case 77/77 Benzine en Petroleum Handelsmaatschappij BV & others v Commission of the European Communities.

European Court of Justice. (1979). Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. AG v Commission of the European Communities.

European Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber). (1998). Case C-7/97 Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co. KG v Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG.

European Court of Justice. (2003). Case T-219/99 British Airways plc v Commission of the European Communities.

Fredriksson, S. (2001). When the refusal to deal becomes an abuse of a dominant position: A study of how Article 82 EC Treaty limits the freedom of action for undertakings in a dominant position (Master’s thesis, Lund University).

Ghīlās, T. (2017). Naẓariyyat al-tashīlāt al-asāsiyyah: Wasīlah li-munāfasah fiʿliyyah. Al-Majallah al-Akādīmiyyah lil-Baḥth al-Qānūnī, 2, 11–19.

Ḥīdah, M. (1998). Al-sūq: Ādābuhu wa-aḥkāmuhu. Al-Muntadā al-Islāmī, 124, 46–53.

Lidgard, H. (2009). Refusal to supply or to license. SSRN. https://bit.ly/3EdK7A3

Lorenz, M. (2013). Article 102 TFEU – Abuse of a dominant position. In An introduction to EU competition law (pp. 188–241). Cambridge University Press.

Oliver, P. (2005). The concept of “abuse” of a dominant position under Article 82 EC: Recent developments in relation to pricing. European Competition Journal, 1(2), 315–339. https://doi.org/10.5235/ecj.v1n2.315

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs. (2004). Synetairismos Farmakopoion Aitolias & Akarnanias (Syfait) and others v GlaxoSmithKline plc and GlaxoSmithKline AEVE (Case C-53/03).

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). Roundtable on refusals to deal: Note by the European Commission.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). Refusals to deal. https://bit.ly/2YAKSPX

Peric, G. (2022). EU competition law and abuse of dominance: A deep dive into Article 102 of the TFEU. Örebro University. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1691421/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Qarār bi-Qānūn Raqm (11) li-Sanat 2025 bishāʾn al-Munāfasah. (2025). Al-Waqāʾiʿ al-Filasṭīnīyah, 226, 23.

Razāyqīyah, Z. (2016). Taʾthīr qānūn al-munāfasah ʿalá ḥuqūq al-milkiyyah al-fikriyyah (Master’s thesis, Jāmiʿat 8 Māy 45 – Qālamah, Algeria).

Taʿlīmāt Raqm (1) li-Sanat 2011m bishāʾn ḥimāyat al-munāfasah fī qiṭāʿ al-ittiṣālāt. (2011). Al-Waqāʾiʿ al-Filasṭīnīyah, 93, 111.

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. (2009).

Ünver, M. (n.d.). Essential facilities doctrine under EC competition law and particular implications of the doctrine for telecommunications sectors in EU and Turkey (Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University, Turkey).

Vijver, T. (2013). Article 102 TFEU: How to claim the application of objective justifications in the case of prima facie dominance abuses? Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 2, 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lps062.