The Reykjavík District Court confirms the fine against SORPU bs. for abuse of a dominant market position. In December 2012, the Competition Authority fined SORPU bs. 45 million krónur for breaching competition law. According to the decision (No. 34/2012) did SORPA bs. (a joint venture of municipalities in the capital region) breach competition law by abusing its dominant market position in the market for waste sorting and treatment. SORPA did this by granting its owners, i.e. the municipalities in the capital region, and the Southlands Waste Station Ltd. higher discounts than other customers, such as waste collection companies, even when the companies brought more waste to SORPA's reception centre in Gufunes than the municipalities did. Pursuant to the Competition Act, the Competition Authority instructed SORPA to revise its service tariff and its commercial agreements in accordance with the provisions of the Competition Act.
SORPA appealed the decision of the Competition Authority to the Competition Appeals Board, primarily seeking the annulment of the decision, and alternatively that the fine for the infringement be cancelled or significantly reduced. The company based its argument, among other things, on the fact that the activities of public undertakings such as SORPA do not fall under competition law.
In March 2013, the Competition Appeals Board upheld the decision of the Competition Authority. In its ruling, the appeal board concluded, among other things, that there is no doubt that SORPA is an undertaking within the meaning of competition law and that provisions of special legislation do not limit the powers of the competition authorities to apply the prohibition provisions of competition law to SORPA. The Board did not grant SORPA's request for a reduction of the fine for the infringement.
SORPA appealed the decision of the Competition Appeals Board to the courts, and today the Reykjavík District Court delivered its judgment in the case. The ruling confirmed that SORPA had abused its dominant market position by discriminating against its customers with different discount terms for similar transactions, in the form of increased discounts for its owners and Sorpstöðvar Suðurlands bs. This infringement by SORPA had distorted the ability of other parties to compete with the public company. The court did not agree to SORPA's request to have the fine quashed or reduced. In this regard, it was noted, among other things, that SORPA's infringement was not insignificant and that the company had no valid reasons to consider itself exempt from competition law.
"*" indicates required fields
