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

02.07.2020 NL law
European Commission to pull the strings of foreign subsidies

Short Reads - The European Commission is adding powers to its toolbox to ensure a level playing field between European and foreign(-backed) companies active on the EU market. On top of merger control and Foreign Direct Investment screening obligations, companies may also need to account for future rules allowing scrutiny of subsidies granted by non-EU governments if those subsidies might distort the EU Single Market.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
Please share – ACM conditionally clears shared mobility platform merger

Short Reads - There may soon be a new competition tool available to tackle structural competition concerns in dynamic tech and platform markets. Until then, competition authorities resort to existing tools to deal with these markets. The Dutch competition authority (ACM) recently subjected the merger of two emerging platforms – without significant market footprint – to behavioural remedies. On 20 May 2020, the ACM cleared the merger between the travel apps of Dutch rail operator NS and transport company Pon.

Read more

02.07.2020 NL law
New competition tool: something old, something new, something borrowed

Short Reads - Large online platforms may face more regulatory obligations, whilst non-dominant companies’ unilateral conduct may soon be curbed. The European Commission intends to tool up its kit by adding a new regulation to keep digital gatekeepers in check, as well as providing more clarity on how to define digital markets in its new Market Definition Notice.

Read more

04.06.2020 NL law
No proof of competitive disadvantage? No abusive favouritism

Short Reads - Companies claiming abuse of dominance in civil proceedings have their work cut out for them, as demonstrated by a ruling of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. Real estate association VBO had accused dominant online platform Funda of favouritism. However, in line with the District Court’s earlier ruling, the Appeal Court dismissed the claim for insufficient evidence of negative effects on competition. The ruling confirms that the effect-based approach also applies in civil abuse claims, and that the standard of proof is high.    

Read more