Short Reads

On the right track? GC sends mixed messages with Lithuanian Railways

On the right track? GC sends mixed messages with Lithuanian Railways

On the right track? GC sends mixed messages with Lithuanian Railways

03.12.2020 NL law

The essential facilities doctrine imposes on holders of indispensable facilities a duty to deal with their competitors. While a railway track may seem essential, a track’s removal does not fall under this doctrine if carried out by a monopolist manager of a state-developed facility bearing a statutory obligation to grant third parties access to its facilities.

According to the General Court, the Commission was therefore correct to use the general framework for abuse of a dominant position to assess the Lithuanian railway operator’s removal of a railway track.

For dominant companies controlling facilities which may be qualified as essential to their potential competitors, this judgment helpfully recognises the protection granted to investment incentives, but also seems to limit the scope of application of the essential facilities doctrine. The decision may have future relevance for tech industry’s ‘gatekeepers’ and the potential qualification of data as an essential facility.

In 2017, the Commission imposed a EUR 27 million fine for abuse of dominance on Lietuvos Gelezinkeliai (LG), the Lithuanian national railway company. The abuse concerns a 19km railway track, stretching from an oil refinery in Lithuania to the Latvian border. The owner of the refinery, an LG customer, was in negotiations to switch services to the Latvian national railway company (LDZ). LDZ needed the track if it was to make a competitive offer. Coincidentally, in the same period, the track was damaged, leading LG to quickly remove it. The removal meant that a longer alternative route through Lithuania had to be used, making LDZ’s offer uncompetitive.

LG appealed to the General Court, which rejected the appeal on substantive points, but reduced the fine in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction.

The essential facilities doctrine imposes on holders of indispensable facilities a duty to deal with a competitor if a strict standard is met: the refusal to deal will likely eliminate competition, there is no objective justification and the facility is indispensable. The General Court rejected LG’s claim that the track removal should have been reviewed under this framework, which balances the protection of competition with that of companies’ incentive to invest in the creation of essential facilities. LG’s dominant position derived from a state monopoly, therefore there was no investment to protect. Further, the legislator had carried out this balancing exercise when it imposed a regulatory obligation on LG to supply access to the railway.

The track removal had to be assessed under the general framework for abuse, and was found to be capable of hindering LDZ’s market entry by making its access to the market more difficult. LG had a special responsibility not to impair genuine, undistorted competition on the market and had failed to meet this responsibility.

Even though the General Court disagreed on substance with LG, it reduced the fine by a third as the conduct concerned a limited geographical space and affected only one of various rail routes between Latvia and Lithuania.

This ruling underlines the narrow scope of application of the essential facilities doctrine that, according to the General Court, only comes into play where the dominant undertaking’s investment incentives need protecting. The essential facilities doctrine was recently revamped in the context of tech industry ‘gatekeepers’ and the potential qualification of data as an essential facility. The Commission’s Digital Markets Act – due to be published on 15 December 2020 – is likely to further clarify how this doctrine fits into the plans to further regulate gatekeepers.    

 

 

This article was published in the Competition Newsletter of December 2020. Other articles in this newsletter:

 

Team

Related news

08.06.2021 NL law
De Europese Klimaatwet uitgelicht

Short Reads - Op 21 april 2021 is een voorlopig akkoord bereikt over de Europese Klimaatwet. Deze Klimaatwet kan worden gezien als de kern van de Europese Green Deal, die in december 2019 werd gepubliceerd door de Europese Commissie. Het overstijgende doel van deze instrumenten is om een klimaatneutraal Europa te bewerkstelligen in 2050. De Europese Klimaatwet zorgt ervoor dat deze klimaatneutraliteitsdoelstelling in een Europese verordening wordt vastgelegd. Dit blogbericht gaat nader in op de Europese Klimaatwet en legt uit wat dit met zich brengt.

Read more

22.07.2021 NL law
Towards a European legal framework for the development and use of Artificial Intelligence

Short Reads - Back in 2014, Stephen Hawking said, “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.” Although the use of artificial intelligence is nothing new and dates back to Alan Turing (the godfather of computational theory), prominent researchers – along with Stephen Hawking – have expressed their concerns about the unregulated use of AI systems and their impact on society as we know it.

Read more

08.06.2021 NL law
Actualiteiten milieustrafrecht: zorgelijke ontwikkelingen

Short Reads - Vrijdag 28 mei jl. hadden wij een inspirerend webinar over actualiteiten op het gebied van milieustrafrecht. Wij spraken gedurende 90 minuten onder meer over aansprakelijkheden van bestuurders, de zorgplichten, incidentenrapportages vanuit strafrechtelijk- en bestuursrechtelijk perspectief.

Read more

03.06.2021 NL law
First material judgment in Dutch damages proceedings in trucks infringement

Short Reads - In its judgment of 12 May 2021, the Amsterdam District Court ruled that it has not been established that it is definitively excluded that the trucks infringement led to damage to the claimants. However, this does not alter the fact that it must still be assessed for each claimant whether the threshold for referral to the damages assessment procedure has been met. For this to be the case, it must be plausible that a claimant may have suffered damage as a result of the unlawful actions of the truck manufacturers. The Amsterdam District Court has not yet ruled on this issue.

Read more