HIH ehf., HIH Painting ehf., HT Carpentry ehf., HIH Cleaning ehf., Þakafl ehf. and HT Properties ehf. v. The Competition Authority

On 9 May 2025, the Competition Authority received a submission from the appellants, which complained that certain conduct of Arion bank hf., Landsbankans hf. and Íslandsbanki hf. might have constituted an abuse of an alleged joint dominant position and an illegal concerted practice in contravention of Articles 10 and 11 of the Competition Act No. 44/2005. The letter stated that in March 2023, Arion Bank hf. had terminated the business relationship with the appellants following the bank's reassessment of the risk associated with the relevant business relationships within the meaning of Act no. 140/2018 on measures to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. The appellants had

further clarification was requested from the bank, but this was not received. Subsequently, the appellants' application for banking services was rejected by Landsbankinn hf. and later also by Íslandsbanki hf., citing the aforementioned Act no. 140/2018. The appellants' submission was that the measures taken by the three commercial banks constituted an infringement of Articles 10 and 11 of the Competition Act and had, furthermore, caused significant inconvenience and damage to the appellants.

The Competition Authority considered the appellants' submission and assessed whether there were grounds to initiate a formal investigation into the matter, pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation No. 880/2005 on the procedure of the Competition Authority. By letter dated 19 August 2025, the Competition Authority announced its decision that there was no basis for initiating a formal investigation into the matter, citing its prioritisation authority under Article 8(3). Article of the Competition Act and Article 9 of Regulation No. 880/2005 on the assessment of grounds.

The conclusion of the Competition Appeals Board was that the decision under appeal was based on a sufficient legal basis and on objective considerations, and on a reasonable assessment of the facts and evidence of the case, pursuant to Article 3. subsection 8.3 of the Competition Act and Article 9 of Regulation No. 880/2005. Furthermore, it was not considered that the decision under appeal was otherwise flawed to the extent that it could be annulled. In particular, it was not considered that the Competition Authority's proceedings were inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 10 and 12 of the Administrative Procedure Act. The appellants' requests for the impugned decision to be annulled were therefore dismissed.