ADUSBEF/AUTOSTRADE (Conclusion of the investigation)
PRESS RELEASE
After having started a proceeding on January 18th, 1996, on the basis of a complaint filed by Adusbef and Europ Assistance, the Authority has decided that Autostrade's behaviour constituted an abuse of dominant position in the roadside assistance services on the highway network and, as such, has issued a cease and desist order to the company.
In particular, the Authority pointed out that Autostrade, by denying the authorization to access the highway network to other roadside assistance service providers, different from ACI, excluded any possibility of competition in the market of the roadside assistance services. The order also specifies that Autostrade will have to file a report, within 60 days from the notification of the decision, on the initiatives it has adopted in order to remedy the infringements.
The Authority highlighted that the exclusive right given to ACI by Autostrade does not constitute the only way through which the company, which has an exclusive monopoly for managing over 50% of the Italian highway network, is able to comply with the specific obligations imposed on it by the law regulating the management of the highway network and the convention stipulated with ANAS. Indeed, it is to be noted that such a law does not impose a particular organizational model and, more precisely, does not provide for the assignment of the service in an exclusive regime. Even the universality aspect of the service, that ensures the roadside assistance services all over the highway network on a uniform basis, does not seem at all to require the presence of a single operator and nor does it justify the current organization structure of the roadside assistance service. In fact, in order to guarantee the uniformity of the service, it is enough that Autostrade merely make new accesses conditional on minimum requirements of safety and timeliness.
On the basis of this argument, the Authority rejected Autostrade's justification for denying access to Europ Assistance, which was founded in the consideration that Europ Assistance did not propose an alternative organization model in substitution of ACI. Indeed, even if it can be considered reasonable for Autostrade to set minimum requirements of uniformity, universality and safety conditions, nonetheless, it cannot be accepted that access to this market be subject to the formulation, on behalf of the new entrant, of an alternative plan.
Furthermore, the experience of the principal European countries confirms that the universality of the roadside assistance service is not necessarily wedded to an exclusivity regime. In fact, in these countries many operators supply the roadside assistance service guaranteeing a degree of universality widely comparable with the one currently ensured by Autostrade through ACI.