The Reykjavík District Court has today dismissed the case brought by the Competition Authority against Samskipir Holding B.V. et al. The Competition Authority brought the case, among other things, in order to have the decision of the Competition Appeals Board overturned, which had reduced the amount of the administrative fine imposed on Samskip for illegal collusion with Eimskip from 4.from 200 million króna to 2,400 million króna.
The Competition Authority's investigation into the companies' illegal collusion was unprecedented in its scope, covering all the main areas of their operations, namely sea freight, land transport and freight forwarding. The investigation covered the companies' conduct from 2008 to 2013, as well as incidents from before that period, and involved the examination of a vast amount of data. This is reflected in the decision of the Competition Authority, where the findings on the companies' illegal collusion are substantiated over three thousand pages.
In its lawsuit, the Competition Authority is seeking to have Samskip's administrative fine overturned. The reason for this is that the Authority believes the fine imposed by the appeals board is not in line with the severity and long-standing nature of Samskip's violations. The district court's ruling refers to the Courts Administration Rules No. 5/2025 on the maximum length of pleadings and memoranda in civil proceedings, etc., and states that the rules contain a benchmark that lawyers and judges are expected to follow. The ruling finds fault with the Competition Authority's statement of case in the matter being 135 pages long and considers that it constitutes a written argument, in contrast to both the general principle of civil procedure for an oral hearing and the provisions of Act no. 91/1991 on the handling of civil cases. The court considers that such a lengthy statement makes it almost impossible for Samskip to submit a defence that meets the requirements of the law.
The Competition Authority considers that the issue in the case is unprecedented in its scope and that it was necessary to address the matter adequately in the statement of case so that it would not be considered inadequately prepared. The Competition Authority therefore intends to appeal the district court's ruling to the Court of Appeal.
"*" indicates required fields
