It is stated in paragraph b of the first subsection of article 16 of the Competition Act No.
44/2005 that the Competition Authority may take action against acts
public authorities to the extent that they may have an adverse effect on competition
provided that special legislation does not contain specific rules on authorisation or
duty to such acts.
Sports and swimming venues
When local authorities run swimming pools and facilities for
In fitness, the problem can arise that competition in the market can be disrupted.
as the operation of the facilities and the activities that take place there often does not
under itself. Costs exceeding the income from the operation are then paid from funds.
the municipalities. When this is the case, the municipalities subsidise activities from
this category. When private individuals who do not receive subsidies for their operations from
municipalities are in competition with the operation that is run with support
It must be clear to local authorities that the competitive position of private parties in the relevant
The market is distorted. The private party receives no subsidy and has to pay
its inputs and other operating costs at full cost. Its pricing must
bear a hint of that fact. For this reason, the Competition Authority in
In some cases, it is stipulated that municipal gyms which are run
in competition with private gyms should be run on a cost-effective basis
separation from another sports facility and the swimming regulations of the municipalities.
Healthcare services
The Icelandic Psychological Association complained to
The Competition Authority regarding the agreements between the National Insurance Institution and psychiatrists on
to pay part of the cost of patients' specialist services.
The National Insurance Board had not agreed to contribute towards patients' costs.
undergoing therapy with psychologists who offer talk therapy. Previously, there had been
reached the conclusion that when it came to non-drug-related mental health problems, and the individual was operating in the same market as psychotherapy provided by clinical psychologists. The Competition Authority
reached the conclusion, decision no. 8/2005, that the decision
Health authorities not to negotiate payment arrangements with clinical psychologists
public expenditure on the cost of mental healthcare would have a detrimental effect on
competition and ability against the objective of competition law. That decision was overturned by the Competition Appeals Tribunal, ref. no. 19/2005, on the grounds that a special
instructions would be in a provision of an Act on health services which took precedence over the provisions
competition law. Therefore, the competition authorities would have lacked the authority to do so.
have they any involvement in the matter which is the subject of the decision under appeal? The Society of Psychologists
Iceland appealed the decision of the Competition Appeals Board to the Reykjavík District Court, E-4825/2006.
Did the court not agree with the decision of the Competition Appeals Tribunal on the Health Service Act
prevents the Competition Authority from taking the necessary action against
the health authorities who were mentioned in its said decision. The District Court's ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court, Hrd. 411/2017, which upheld the decision.
of the arbitration panel. The Supreme Court held that competition law was general law which
would have to yield to incompatible provisions of special legislation. The Competition Authority was therefore
It is not considered permissible to intervene on the basis of paragraph b of the first subsection of article 16 of the Competition Act.
to take action in the manner its resolution provided.
Rubbish collection
The Competition Authority reached that conclusion by decision.
No. 34/2012 that SORPA bs. had breached competition law by abusing
its dominant market position in the market for waste sorting and handling. Was
violated by the fact that SORPA provided its owners, i.e. the municipalities in
in the capital region and to Sorpustöð Suðurlands bs., a higher discount than others
customers. Other customers of SORPA were, for example, other waste collection companies.
which were even producing more waste than the municipalities in question. Assessment
The Competition Authority was concerned that these different discounts from SORPA had had
Harmful effects on competition. SORPU was therefore directed to review its tariff.
for their services. The commercial terms in the new tariff schedule should be general and transparent so that parties engaged in similar business with SORPA would enjoy the same
cheap.
The decision of the Competition Authority was confirmed by the Competition Appeals Board, decision no. 1/2013. SORPA took the matter to the Reykjavík District Court, which acquitted the Competition Authority in case E-3598/2013.
SORPA appealed that judgment to the Supreme Court, which upheld the District Court's judgment, Hrd.
273/2015.
"*" indicates required fields
