Competition law is the most important, if not the only, instrument for the Commission when encountering this problem. The remedies of EC competition law cannot be addressed directly to the NRAs, but to the undertakings with Significant Market Power (SMP) subject to regulatory remedies. In respect of the rules of EC competition law the redress of competition law against regulatory failure has to be triggered by an anti-competitive activity of those SMP undertakings. According to Deutsche Telecom case, there seems to be two conditions for the intervention of EC competition law. The first condition is that a regulatory failure, i.e. an anti-competitive activity, still exists after the imposition of regulatory remedies. The second is that the SMP undertakings involved can be imputed to this anti-competitive activity for the reason that it enjoys some margin of discretion to prevent such activity from happening but it does not.　　
　　
【参考文献】Bibliography
I. Books:
1. Damien Geradin (ed.), Remedies in Network Industries: EC Competition Law vs. Sector-specific Regulation, 2004;
2. Paul　Nihoul and Peter B. Rodford, EU electronic communications law: competition and regulation in the European telecommunications market, 2004;
3. Peggy Valcke, Robert Queck and Eva Lievens, EU Communications Law: Significant Market Power in the Mobile Sector, Edward Elgar, 2005;
4. Pierre Larouche, Competition Law and Regulation in European Telecommunications, 2000;
II. Papers:
1. Alexandre de Streel, The Integration of Competition Law Principle in the New European Regulatory Framework for Electronic Communication, World Competition, 26(3): 489-514, 2003.
2. Alexandre de Streel, The New Concept of SMP in Electronic Communications, ECLR 2003, vol. 10, 535
3. Christian Bergqvist, Sector specific regulation vs. general competition law, http://www.jur.ku.dk/medarbejdere/christianbergqvist/sector_regulations_vs_competition_law.

第 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] 页 共[6]页