The Court of Appeal directs the district court to consider the illegal collusion between Samskip and Eimskip.

The Court of Appeal has quashed the district court's order for dismissal and directed the district court judge to admit the Competition Authority's case against Samskip for substantive hearing. The district court had dismissed the case on the grounds, among others, that the claim contained an unreasonable amount of written argument. The ruling of the Court of Appeal states that the Competition Authority's proceedings meet the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that there are no defects which could lead to the case being dismissed. Accordingly, Samskip must pay the Competition Authority's costs of appealing the district court's ruling to the Landsréttur.

The case was brought by the Competition Authority in order to restore the administrative fine imposed on Samskip, which the Competition Appeals Board had reduced from 4.2 billion to 2.4 billion krónur. The Competition Authority considered the fine imposed by the appeals board to be inconsistent with Samskip's serious and long-standing infringements.

In a ruling of the district court, which the Competition Authority appealed to the Court of Appeal, reference was made to the Courts Administration's Rule 5/2025 on the maximum length of statements of claim and statements of defence in civil proceedings, etc., and it was noted that the Authority's statement of claim was 135 pages long. The district court considered the length of the statement of claim made it almost impossible for Samskip to file a defence that met the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal considers the Competition Authority's power of action to be justified by a strong public interest.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal refers to the fact that, under the Competition Act, the Competition Authority has a specific power to bring legal proceedings to annul a decision of the Competition Appeals Tribunal. The Court of Appeal states that the Competition Authority's power of action is justified by„in the public interest, as well as the fact that the courts have the final say after a decision on sanctions has been made“.

The Court of Appeal considers that a clear provision is made for grounds in the claim form.
The conclusion of the Court of Appeal is reasoned that there are no defects in the Competition Authority's case that would justify the dismissal of the case from the district court. The Court of Appeal notes that the Competition Authority had, in its statement of claim, distinguished with „set out their arguments clearly over the long period to which the events in question relate.“ Regarding Samskip's ability to submit a statement of case, the Court of Appeal states that when considering „of the substance of the policy as well as of that which is set out above regarding the scope of the decision whose annulment is sought, the parties' arguments and the evidence in the case otherwise, [it must be] considered that the context of the facts and arguments, as well as the reference to legal rules, are sufficiently clear for [Samskip] to be able to take substantive defences“.

Gizur Bergsteinsson, a lawyer for the Competition Authority, says that the decision of the Landsréttur is in line with both the requirements set by the Supreme Court for pleadings in competition cases and how similar procedural rules are followed in neighbouring countries.

„It is difficult to summarise the essence of extensive illegal collusion. which is described on over three thousand pages in the decision of the Competition Authority. The district court's ruling therefore came as a surprise to us, as the length of pleadings is primarily determined by the subject matter of the dispute and the requirements of procedural law for their exposition. antonyms and in a clear manner. In connection with the handling of the case before the Court of Appeal, we gathered information on the enforcement of competition law in our neighbouring countries. It emerged that the pleadings in competition cases with our fellow Nordic countries, Denmark and Norway, are typically extensive. For example, not so long ago, the Danish competition authority submitted a 146-page submission in a competition case to the Eastern High Court. We therefore consider that the Landsréttur's decision is consistent both with the requirements that the Supreme Court has placed on competition law pleadings and with how similar procedural rules are followed by our Nordic neighbours.“

Readable Ruling of the Court of Appeal here.