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

06.05.2021 EU law
Abuse of economic dependence: lessons drawn from the first judgments

Short Reads - On 22 August 2020, the ban on abuse of economic dependence was implemented in Belgium (Article IV.2/1 of the Code of Economic Law). Now that almost a year has passed and the first judgments have been rendered, we assess what first lessons can be drawn from these judgments. The rulings show that the ban is regularly relied upon in court and has lowered the hurdle for plaintiffs to make their case.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more