Short Reads

Reducing contractually agreed compensation payments because of economic crisis is not State aid

Reducing contractually agreed compensation payments because of econom

Reducing contractually agreed compensation payments because of economic crisis is not State aid

06.12.2018 NL law

On 23 November 2018, the European Commission confirmed that the Antwerp Port Authority's retroactive reduction of contractual minimum tonnage requirements for two port concessionaires did not qualify as State aid.

Even if the Port Authority's decision was partly guided by mobility and employment considerations, its main reasons for the reduction were economically motivated. The Commission's findings confirm that States and state authorities may take considerations such as maintaining business relations and potential litigation risks into account without necessarily violating State aid rules.

In March 2013, following the economic crisis in maritime trade from 2009 onwards, the Antwerp Port Authority (APA) decided to substantially reduce the contractually agreed compensation payments due by two port concessionaires (PSA and Antwerp Gateway (AG)) that had failed to achieve their respective contractual minimum tonnage requirements (MTRs), i.e. tonnages they had to tranship. A third concessionaire (Katoen Natie) submitted a State aid complaint but in its recent decision, the Commission concluded that no State aid was involved.

Despite initial doubts expressed in its decision to open the formal procedure, the Commission validated the APA’s decision to reduce the concessionaires’ increasing MTRs. According to the Commission, applying this new MTR methodology for the crisis years fulfilled the ‘Market Economy Operator’ (MEO) test, having regard to, for example:

  • APA’s interest in maintaining long-term cooperation with two key customers.
  • the underlying goal of the MTRs (namely to serve as an incentive to increase volumes, rather than as a source of revenue).
  • if the initial MTRs had been upheld, the risk of PSA and AG initiating litigation to challenge the legality of the compensation payments, and that the APA might well have (partially) lost.

The decision confirms that States and or state authorities - like any market economy operator - can enter into settlement agreements with private undertakings to, for example, avoid (uncertain) legal proceedings, without necessarily violating the State aid rules.

The Commission pointed out that all concessionaires in the port, including the complainant, could benefit from the APA’s measure. At the same time, it recognised that while the MTRs of other concessionaires were stable, the MTRs of PSA and AG were still increasing because they were still in the start-up phase of their concession. As a result, the latter were hit harder by the crisis in terms of compensation payments to be made which meant their situation was not comparable and could justify more substantial reductions.

The length of time between the start of the crisis (in 2009) and the actual decision (2013) to readjust the MTRs is not itself contrary to the MEO test. Nor is the fact that the APA may have been partly guided by considerations of, for example, mobility or employment. In the end, the Commission agreed that the APA’s decision was primarily led by economic considerations and did not involve State aid.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of December 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

07.11.2019 NL law
Safeguarding legal privilege: better safe than sorry?

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice recently ruled that the European Commission does not have to take additional precautionary measures to respect the right of legal professional privilege when conducting a new dawn raid at the same company. Companies are well-advised to mark clearly all communications covered by legal privilege as 'privileged and confidential' and to keep all privileged communication separate from other communication.

Read more

12.11.2019 EU law
Third country bids in EU procurement: always excluded?

Articles - The European Commission recently issued guidance on the participation of third country bidders in public procurement. It clarified bids may be excluded, but remains silent on whether they may be accepted and under which conditions. The Commission is of the opinion that contracting authorities or entities can exclude bids if no access is secured. However, it does not discuss if and under which conditions contracting authorities or entities can allow foreign bids if no access is secured.

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Tackling Big Tech up-front? Time to stop thinking and start acting

Short Reads - Benelux competition authorities have published a joint memorandum on how best to keep up with challenges in fast-moving digital markets. As well as calling on the European Commission to issue an economic study on digital mergers, the memorandum calls for an ex ante intervention tool to fill the gap between interim measures and ex post enforcement. This tool would pre-emptively impose behavioural remedies on digital gatekeepers without first having to establish an actual competition law infringement.

Read more

08.11.2019 BE law
Interview with Wouter Ghijsels on Next Gen lawyers

Articles - Stibbe’s managing partner Wouter Ghijsels shares his insights on the next generation of lawyers and the future of the legal profession at the occasion of the Leaders Meeting Paris where Belgian business leaders, politicians and inspiring people from the cultural and academic world will discuss this year's central theme "The Next Gen".

Read more

07.11.2019 NL law
Rotterdam District Court rules that claims in elevator cartel damages proceedings need further substantiation

Short Reads - The Rotterdam District Court has ordered claimant SECC (a litigation vehicle) to substantiate its claims in proceedings against Kone and ThyssenKrupp regarding the elevator cartel. The Court also ruled that some claims have become time-barred, unless SECC can show that these were timely assigned to SECC and notified to Kone and ThyssenKrupp. The Court rejected several defences of Kone and Thyssenkrupp, including a jurisdictional challenge based on arbitration clauses between the defendants and assignors of claims to SECC.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring