ECJ affirms access claims to digital platforms: Refinement of the essential facilities doctrine

In February 2025, the European Court of Justice clarified the application of the essential facilities doctrine in the context of digital platforms in its “Android Auto” judgment (ECJ, judgment of February 25, 2025, C-233/23). The Court found that the refusal of a dominant undertaking to ensure the interoperability of its platform with a third-party app may be abusive. In this context, the platform does not have to be essential for the commercial use of the app by the third party; it is sufficient that it makes the app more attractive to users.

Background of the decision

At the center of the proceedings was the Enel Group's JuicePass app. It was developed, to make it easier for drivers of electric vehicles in Italy to search for and reserve charging stations. The Enel Group wanted to make the app interoperable with Google's Android Auto platform to improve the user experience. However, Google refused to do so on the grounds that the platform currently only supports multimedia and messaging apps from third-party providers and that Google would face high costs in developing a suitable template for the app.

The Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) ruled that this refusal constituted an abuse of a dominant market position and imposed a fine of 102 million euro on Google. Google appealed to the administrative court, but the court also dismissed the case. The case was then referred to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling.

Key statements of the ECJ decision

The ECJ made it clear that a dominant undertaking that refuses to make its platform interoperable with a third-party app may be abusing its dominant market position. It is not necessary that the platform is indispensable for the app to operate. Rather, it is sufficient if interoperability makes the app more attractive to consumers and increases its competitiveness. This applies in particular to platforms developed for access by third-party providers, since in such cases stricter requirements must be met for a refusal of access than for conventional infrastructures developed exclusively for a company's internal use, such as ports, railway stations or energy and telecommunications networks.

With this decision, the ECJ deviates from the previous case law on the essential facilities doctrine, which was established in the Bronner case of 1998 (ECJ, judgment of 26.11.1998, C-7/97). In this case, the ECJ ruled that a refusal of access to an essential facility by a dominant undertaking only constitutes an abuse if, among other things, the facility is indispensable for the business operations of the third party and there is no economically reasonable alternative.

The ECJ also emphasized that the refusal of the dominant undertaking could also have anti-competitive effects, if competing apps are successful without interoperability with the platform. Therefore, it must be examined in each individual case whether the behavior of the dominant undertaking could affect competition in the market.

However, the refusal of access could be justified by objective reasons, for example if interoperability endangers the security or integrity of the platform. However, the ECJ made it clear that the lack of a specific technical template for the app was not a sufficient reason to refuse access. Rather, the dominant undertaking would be obliged to develop such a template within a reasonable period of time. In doing so, it could demand an appropriate financial consideration that takes into account the development effort and the needs of the third-party provider.

Outlook

The ECJ decision marks a turning point regarding access to digital platforms. Under certain conditions, companies that hold a dominant market position in the field of digital platforms may be obliged to ensure the interoperability of their platforms with third-party apps, even if access is not essential for the third-party provider to be successful on the market. This applies in particular to platforms that were designed to allow access by third parties. This judgment is also relevant in the context of the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA), as it makes it clear that obligations to grant access are not limited to certain “gatekeeper” platforms, but can apply to all dominant digital platforms.

Back to list