ANTITRUST AUTHORITY FINES AEROPORTI DI ROMA (ADR) EURO 1,668,000 FOR ABUSE OF ITS DOMINANT POSITION

The company levied excessive charges for refuelling and sub-letting office space to freight operators. Moreover, the system of charges for access to Fiumicino's “Cargo City” prejudiced free competition and damaged other handlers.

The Italian Competition Authority, at its meeting on 23 October 2008 decided that AdR, Aeroporti di Roma, abused the dominant position it enjoys as holder of an exclusive license until 2044 for the joint management of the Roma-Fiumicino and Roma-Ciampino airports; it imposed fines totalling Euro 1,668,000 (one million six hundred and sixty-eight thousand).

Specifically, the Authority decided on:

- a fine of Euro 402,000 (four hundred and two thousand) for abuse in overcharging for refuelling;

- a fine of Euro 196,000 (one hundred and ninety-six thousand) for abuse in overcharging in sub-letting office space to freight operators (the only instance of abuse still going on);

- a fine of Euro 1,070,000 (one million and seventy thousand) for abuse in charging for access to Fiumicino's Cargo City.

The investigation was begun on 14 December 2006 following receipt of a number of complaints from IBAR (Italian Board Airlines Representatives) and from freight operators and associations of freight operators (ALAS, ASSODOR and ANAMA) at Fiumicino airport, who complained of the anti-competitive effects of a number of aspects of AdR's conduct.

In particular, the abuses of a dominant position punished as exploitation in violation of Art. 82 of the EC Treaty had to do with those markets in which the difference between charges applied and costs sustained by the handler is particularly significant, much higher than the maximum level the regulator accepts as being related to costs plus a margin as a return on capital invested.

The abuses complained of had to do with:

1) refuelling services, where AdR's airport fee for the period from 2004 till 2005 was Euro 7.20 per cubic metre including an infrastructure usage fee, whereas an investigation conducted by ENAC came up with an inclusive fee that should not have exceeded Euro 4.72 per cubic metre supplied. So AdR's charges seem to have been over 50% above the real value of the service provided. Hence AdR's conduct  represents an instance of the application of excessive prices, and is “abusive” within the meaning of EU competition law inasmuch as such charges were made by a company enjoying a dominant position;

2)sub-letting of office space, where AdR charged freight handlers rents more than double those of  independent cargo companies which are presumed to represent the pricing benchmark for the service (27.60 €/m²/month as against 12.97 €/m²/month);

3)access charges for Cargo City at Fiumicino. The fixed fee per flight charged by AdR from 2004 till 2006 made it more expensive for a company to choose a handler operating in competition with AdR for the preparation of goods. AdR, merely in order to accept goods prepared by outside handlers into Cargo City charged a sum equivalent to the full charge it applied for handling export goods. That sum was reduced by a fixed amount which was in any case lower than the costs sustained by a competitor at least as efficient as AdR (including a charge for the use of infrastructure). This conduct had anti-competitive results because it made it systematically more expensive to use a competing handler for the preparation of freight.

On the other hand, the investigation did not find sufficient proof of abuse in applying excessive and inequitable pricing for the use of centralized infrastructure. As regards the fee charged to security operators for additional security activities, the investigation found that the price AdR charged security operators was not excessive.

Finally, the charges for access to common and/or exclusive catering services were found to be substantially aligned with costs and hence not “abusive” under Art. 82 of the EC Treaty.

Rome, 3 November 2008