Summary

Facts

IVYS requested the intervention of CMT because of the interruption of the provision of mobile services by AMENA, which affected its activity as reseller of mobile services. IVYS requested the CMT to mandate AMENA to restore the service and to put a halt to the abusive practice of AMENA.

Firstly, the CMT needed to determine if an access agreement between IVYS and AMENA actually existed.

Decision

CMT rejected IVYS´ request, since it found no proof of the existence of an access agreement between AMENA and IVYS.

Reasoning

CMT is competent to analyze disputes in the matter of access to public networks of telecommunications, between network operators, or between network operators and companies that need to access their networks to provide electronic communication services.

CMT found that the framework agreement signed by IVYS and AMENA did not include resale services, other than to prohibit them, and that its objective was the provision of mobile service to a business client.

CMT confirmed that there were indications that some AMENA employees were aware of IVYS resale activity and that the volume of services provided to IVYS was abnormal for a business client. However, CMT concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that it was AMENA´s intention to ensure IVYS the access to its services for resale.

Regarding AMENA’s presumed abusive practices and in case there was an access dispute between IVYS and AMENA, CMT indicated that at that time AMENA was designated as dominant only in the market of interconnection services, a market that is unrelated to the resale activity referred to by IVYS.