WRITTEN QUESTION E-3064/01 by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission. Dispute concerning port dues.
Date: 2001-11-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, charges for use of infrastructure, competition law, complaint to the Commission, dominant position, ports policy

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/87

(2002/C 147 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3064/01

by Jan Andersson (PSE) to the Commission

(8 November 2001)

Subject: Dispute concerning port dues

There has been a long-standing dispute between the port of Helsingborg and Scandlines over the level of
port dues. Four years ago, the two parties turned to the Commission for a decision, though none has been
forthcoming yet, which is unacceptable. The Commission’s decision will be important as it will not only
affect the port of Helsingborg but also the tariffs set in other ports.

1. When can the two parties expect a decision from the Commission in this matter?

Is the Commission’s position, in principle, that market principles should apply in setting the level of

2.
port dues?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2002)

The Honourable Member refers to complaints by two ferry-operators alleging an abuse of a dominant
position by the Port of Helsingborg that would consist of excessive and discriminatory pricing. The
Commission is continuing to examine these cases, which, however, raise many complex factual and legal
issues, as the Member of the Commission responsible for Competition explained before the Parliament in
the reply to oral question H-535/01 during question time at Parliament’s July 2001 session (1).
In
particular, as the markets are not static, it has been necessary to examine the potential impact of the
Øresund bridge on the case.

The Commission is fully aware of the consequences of the situation on the parties (the Port and the ferry
operators) and is actively pursuing the investigation. In this regard, another round of fact-finding has been
carried out in the last few months, including further meetings with all the principal parties involved. The
case has been given top priority and the Commission intends to come to a position in this matter as soon
as possible.

According to existing jurisprudence, ports are considered as undertakings within the meaning of the
competition rules of the EC Treaty, which therefore also apply to ports, notably Article 82 (ex Article 86)
of the EC Treaty which prohibits abuse of dominant position. It is not the existence of dominance but the
abuse of such a position by the undertaking in question that is prohibited. The Commission examines each
case individually in order to determine whether there is such an abuse. While market principles should, in
principle, apply in setting the level of port dues on the basis of demand and supply, the market forces may
occasionally be disturbed. This may indeed be the case where a dominant undertaking is abusing its
dominant position by charging excessive or discriminatory prices. Such situations may well
justify an
intervention by the Commission in order to restore the market conditions.

In view of the above, and in parallel with the ongoing investigation, the Commission has encouraged the
parties to explore again whether a settlement was possible for instance on future port fees, thereby putting
an end to the ongoing effects of their dispute, without Commission involvement. Such a settlement would
not prevent the Commission from continuing its investigation, if necessary.

(1) Oral reply, 3.7.2001.