Samskip appealed the decision of the Competition Authority No. 33/2023 from 31 August 2023 to the Competition Appeal Tribunal and, among other things, sought its annulment.
Í Decisions of the Competition Appeal Tribunal , which was issued today, confirms that Samskip had illegal collusion with Eimskip between 2008 and 2013. The ruling requires Samskip to pay a 2.3 billion króna fine to the state treasury for serious and extensive breaches of Article 10 of the Competition Act and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement. Samskip is also ordered to pay a 100 million króna fine for breaching its obligation to provide information under Article 19 of the Act.
The investigation into the collusion between Samskip and Eimskip began following a search of the companies by the Competition Authority in autumn 2013, and a second search was conducted in 2014. The investigation revealed that the companies had engaged in illegal collusion, which they decided to significantly intensify in 2008. With this in mind, the companies' senior management met at the premises of the investment company belonging to Samskip's main owner on 6 June 2008, where they decided to launch a large-scale collusion project which was named „A new beginning“ or „New beginning.
The appeal board's ruling therefore states that „appellants (Samskip) has infringed Article 10 of the Competition Act and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement through a complex and long-lasting illegal collusion with Eimskip during the investigation period. This included the companies„ collaboration in 2008 through the “New Beginning' project, which started in June 2008 and was aimed at distorting competition, as well as consultation concerning changes to Eimskip's shipping schedule which came into effect at the end of July of the same year […] . It is then proven that the companies engaged in market sharing („peace“), which involved them avoiding competition for each other's important customers, and that this conduct took place between 2009 and 2012. […] The companies then consulted with each other on specifically specified pricing matters and other sensitive competition matters..“
The appeal board's ruling states that the specific collaboration between Samskip and Eimskip did not constitute an infringement, but „All in all, the conclusion of the matter is that the decision under appeal, with regard to its most significant aspects, should be upheld.“
When assessing Samskip's liability, the appeals board states that regard must be had to the fact that Samskip's breach„were extensive and took place over a period of four and a half years, from June 2008 to the end of 2012, as previously stated. The infringements occurred in macroeconomically important markets where the appellants and Eimskip were in a dominant position and competition was limited. During the period under investigation, the value of goods exports amounted to 29–35% of gross domestic product and the value of goods imports to 26–30%, but the vast majority of transport to and from the country is by sea. This includes, among other things, a significant proportion of consumer goods imported into the country, and inputs and operating supplies for manufacturing companies (see, for example, section 35.2.5 of the contested decision). It is therefore established that collusion between transport companies can lead to an increase in transport costs and thus cause significant harm to consumers and businesses, and reduce competitiveness. Furthermore, it should be noted that the infringements occurred at a time when the Icelandic society was grappling with the consequences of the economic collapse of 2008, and it was crucial that effective competition prevailed in the transport markets.“
The appeal board therefore considers that Samskip's breach „the breach of the obligation to provide information under Article 19 of the Competition Act was also serious, as it was liable to hinder the investigation of the case. As the obligation of undertakings to provide information is a crucial prerequisite for the effective investigation by competition authorities, it is essential that the sanctions for breaching that obligation have a deterrent effect.“
Eimskip's involvement in the offences ended with a settlement the company reached with the Competition Authority in 2021. With the settlement, the company admitted the infringement, paid an administrative fine of 1.5 billion krónur and committed to taking specific measures to prevent further infringements and promote increased competition.
Previously, the Dutch competition authority had fined the companies for their serious illegal collusion in the Dutch refrigerated storage market between 2006 and 2009, which was used, among other things, for the export of Icelandic seafood. Eimskip accepted the Dutch regulator's decision, but Samskip appealed the case to the local courts, which upheld Samskip's infringement. The case was finally concluded with a ruling from the Court of Appeal in November 2024.
The decision of the appeal board can be found here .
"*" indicates required fields
