Koninklijke Kpn N V - Report of Foreign Issuer (6-K)
April 28 2008 - 5:03AM
Edgar (US Regulatory)
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 6-K
REPORT OF FOREIGN ISSUER
Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
For April 23, 2008
KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V.
Maanplein 55
2516 CK The Hague
The Netherlands
(Exact
name of registrant and address of principal executive offices)
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under
cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in
this Form is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission
pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If
Yes is marked, indicate below the file under assigned to the registrant in
connection with
Rule 12g3-2(b):
This
Report on Form 6-K contains a copy of the following press release:
·
Abuse proceedings German and Belgian mobile market, dated April 23,
2008.
|
|
Press release
|
|
|
|
Abuse proceedings German and Belgian
mobile market
|
|
Date
|
|
|
23 April 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number
|
|
|
025pe
|
The Federal
Cartel Office in Germany has opened abuse proceedings on the German mobile
communications market. The proceedings were initiated following a complaint
made by KPN to the Bundeskartellamt on suspicion that the market leaders t
T-Mobile and Vodafone have abused their dominant position.
Independently
and at the same time in Belgium the College of Competition Prosecutors alleges in
a reasoned report an abuse of dominant position by Proximus after a complaint
filed by KPNs mobile subsidiary Base
Over the past
few years KPN, E-Plus and BASE repeatedly demanded corrective action against
the abusive behaviour of certain operators (some of which partially state
owned) on the German and Belgian mobile communications markets, which affects
not only competition, but also consumer interests. This is true for the
discussion on mobile termination rates, for a fair allocation of frequencies,
pricing for fixed to mobile connections and also certain abusive tariff plans
of the market leaders.
The actions
now taken by the competition authorities both in Germany and Belgium confirm
our believe that the dominant providers are engaging in anti-competitive
behaviour on both the Belgium and German market. We will do our utmost to
support the proceedings in order to protect our investments on the Belgium and
German market. Im very pleased that at last action has been taken in the
interest of all of our stakeholders and consumers, said Stan Miller, CEO of
KPN Mobile International.
According to the report of the College of competition in Belgium,
Proximus has committed an infringement during the period under review, over the
years 2002 to 2005, among others by charging other mobile phone operators
excessive selling prices for Belgacom Mobiles services of terminating calls
made to its own network. Furthermore, these tariffs would have been
discriminatory, loyalty rebates were given to its professional customers
without any economic grounds, as well as the occurrence of a price squeeze.
It is now up to the Competition Council to make the final decision as to
whether or not an abuse of dominant position has occurred.
If the Competition Council confirms the position of the College of
Prosecutors the case may lead not only to fines being imposed upon Proximus,
but also to damage claims from all operators affected by the anti competitive
behaviour for the entire period.
Already in
2003 BASE filed an civil action against Proximus to investigate the abusive use
of low on-net rates (tariffs between Proximus customers) combined with
excessive termination rates, which did not allow BASE to compete for these
customers. Mobistar, the second operator on the Belgian market joined this
action and together they claim more than 1 billion in damages from Proximus.
In 2007, the Brussels Commercial Court declared Proximus dominant and ordered
the appointment of experts
to investigate
the alleged abuses. More recently, the Brussels Court of Appeal suspended a
decision of the Belgian regulator which imposed termination rates upon all
three operators amongst others because this decision provided an unjustified
advantage to Proximus.
The
investigation started by the Bundeskartellamt in Germany follows earlier
statements from this office in a decision* on the collaboration of several
network operators in the area of mobile TV. In this decision, the Federal
Cartel Office referred to the potential dominance of T-Mobile and Vodafone: On
the voice telephony market the presumption of an oligopoly [
] involving
T-Mobile and Vodafone has been established. [
] Competition between these two
companies does not appear to be very strong at present.
2
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to
be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
|
KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V.
|
|
|
Dated: April 28, 2008
|
By:
|
/s/ MICHEL
HOEKSTRA
|
|
|
Michel Hoekstra
|
|
|
|
Legal Counsel
|
|
Royal Kpn (NYSE:KPN)
Historical Stock Chart
From May 2024 to Jun 2024
Royal Kpn (NYSE:KPN)
Historical Stock Chart
From Jun 2023 to Jun 2024