The dispute in this case concerns the decision of the Competition Authority that there is no basis for investigating the appellant's complaint that the conditions of Article 14. Article 14 of the Competition Act No. 44/2005 are met. The decision of the Competition Authority is based on section 8(3) of the Competition Act No. 44/2005 and section 9 of Regulation No. 880/2005 on the procedure of the Competition Authority, as subsequently amended.
In accordance with the 3rd paragraph of Article 8 of the Competition Act, the Competition Authority decides whether a complaint received by the authority provides sufficient grounds for an investigation. It also provides that when dealing with matters under the Act, the Competition Authority is permitted to prioritise cases. The assessment of whether a submission provides grounds for an investigation shall be based on objective criteria, cf. e.g. the detailed discussion in Regulation no. 880/2005, in particular Article 9(2), which also lists specific factors considered relevant to that assessment, although this list is not exhaustive. It has been considered that the same applies in this respect to the exercise of the power to prioritise cases, see e.g. the more detailed discussion in the rulings of the Appeal Board in cases no. 4/2012 and 4/2019. Furthermore, the Competition Authority has been held to be permitted to discontinue an investigation and dismiss a case on the basis of Article 8(3) of the Competition Act, see the decision of the Appeal Board in case no. 4/2012. The Appeals Board has thus afforded the Competition Authority a certain degree of discretion in assessing how the authority's resources are allocated to its most pressing priorities at any given time, but the authority's decisions to discontinue an investigation or to refuse to investigate a case are subject to the board's review. Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that it is not a given that a person who believes that competition law has been breached has a legal right to have an investigation into an alleged infringement commenced by the Competition Authority.
In this case, the appellant maintains that the letting of hunting lodges by hunting associations outside the hunting season results in a distorted competitive position in the accommodation sectorand catering operations, and that there is therefore cause to provide for the financial separation of shooting associations with regard to the operation of shooting lodges, on the one hand during the shooting season and on the other hand outside the shooting season, with reference to Article 14 of the Competition Act. para. of the Competition Act, where hunting associations operate under the shelter of a public monopoly or protection within the meaning of the aforementioned legal provision. The Competition Authority considers that there is no basis for further investigation of the appellant's complaint, as it provides no indication of anti-competitive practices or unlawful conduct. In this regard, reference is made, inter alia, to the fact that the conditions of Article 14 of the Competition Act are not seen to be met in this case, and therefore there is no reason to intervene on the basis of that provision. In addition, considerations regarding the prioritisation of the agency's work further support the decision not to take further action regarding the appellant's complaint.
Provision 14 of the Competition Act contains a power for the Competition Authority to order financial separation, on the one hand, between the part of a company's operations that enjoys a public monopoly or protection, and on the other hand, the part of its operations that is in free competition with other parties. For the provision to be applied, the undertaking in question must be either a public undertaking or an undertaking that operates, in part, under a public monopoly or protection. Care must be taken that the competitive operation is not subsidised by activities that enjoy a patent or protection.
In the opinion of the Appeal Board, the appellant has not presented convincing arguments that the conditions of Article 14 of the Competition Act regarding instructions on financial separation are met with regard to the letting of shooting lodges owned by shooting associations. In this regard, it should be noted, among other things, that hunting associations are not considered to operate under the protection of a public monopoly. Furthermore, the special position created for hunting associations by Law No. 61/2006 regarding the disposal of game and the use of their assets, in the opinion of the appeal board, cannot be equated with protection within the meaning of Article 14 of the Competition Act. It should be noted that pursuant to paragraph e of the first subsection of article 37 of Act No. 61/2006, hunting associations are required to utilise the association's assets and dispose of them in the most profitable manner for their members. With the enactment of Act No. 50/2015, the legislature decided to specifically provide for the right of hunting associations to dispose of their assets outside the hunting season for related activities, but the reason for that legislation was a judgment of the Supreme Court of Iceland from 13. March 2014 in case no. 676/2013, which concerned, among other things, the authority to lease a hunting lodge for general accommodation and catering outside the defined hunting season in accordance with Act no. 61/2006.
In view of the foregoing, it cannot be seen that the Competition Authority's assessment of the appellant's complaint was unreasonable. In this regard, regard is had, inter alia, to the considerations set out in Article 9 of Regulation No 880/2005. Accordingly, it appears that there was a sufficient basis for the Competition Authority's decision not to take further action in the matter, and that the decision was based on a sufficient legal foundation and a reasoned assessment of the facts of the case, see 3. para. 8 of Article 8 of the Act no. 44/2005 and Article 9 of Regulation no. 880/2005. It follows that the appellant's request to annul the contested decision of the Competition Authority of 3 March 2022 must be dismissed. March 2022, and for the Competition Appeals Board to decide that shooting associations shall be required to separate the operation of their shooting lodges during the shooting season from their operation outside the shooting season. Likewise, the request to refer the case back to the Competition Authority for further investigation is rejected. In light of this, the appellant's claims are all dismissed.
1 / 2022
"*" indicates required fields
