Yes they did. But this trial wasn't about that.
Abuse of dominance requires two elements: dominance and abuse. Both sides accepted having the Court decide first whether or not Google's behaviour was abusive. Given that the Court (rightly, I think) determined that the behaviour wasn't abusive, there was no need to decide whether or not Google was dominant.
Given that (because the Court found there was no abuse) Streetmap would've have still lost regardless of the finding (or not) of dominance. It would've therefore likely been on the hook for the costs incurred in all the argument about Google's dominance whether or not it had won on dominance. So you can see why Streetmap accepted the splitting off of the abuse point to be decided as a preliminary issue to the main trial.