BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
Coillte Teoranta / Coillte Allocation Scheme. [1998] IECA 527 (19th November, 1998)
Competition
Authority Decision of 19 November 1998, relating to a proceeding under Section
4 of the Competition Act, 1991.
Notification
No. CA/824/92E - Coillte Teoranta / Coillte Allocation Scheme.
Decision
No 527.
Introduction
1. This
decision relates to a standard form agreement between Coillte Teoranta and
certain customer companies involved in sawmilling for the guaranteed supply by
Coillte Teoranta of minimum quantities of sawlogs to these companies. This
agreement is known as the Coillte Allocation Scheme. The agreement was notified
to the Competition Authority on 30 September 1992 by Coillte Teoranta with a
request for a certificate under
Section 4(4) of the
Competition Act, 1991, or,
in the event of a refusal by the Authority to grant a certificate, a licence
under
Section 4(2).
The
Facts
(c)
The subject of the notification
2. The
notification concerns a standard form agreement between Coillte Teoranta and
its customer sawmills relating to the guaranteed supply of minimum quantities
of sawlogs under the CAS for the timber production industry.
(b)
The parties involved
3. Coillte
Teoranta was established in 1989 as an independent commercial state company
under the
Forestry Act, 1988, as a successor to the Forest Service of the
Department of Industry. Coillte Teoranta is incorporated under the Companies
Acts. Its functions include the development of the forestry industry on a
commercial basis, to set up and manage woodland industries, to take part with
others in forestry and related activities with a view to enhancing the
effective and profitable operation of the company and to utilise and manage its
resources in accordance with the above functions. The other parties to the
agreement are the sawmills who comply with the required standards of the CAS.
(c)
The products and the market.
4. These
have been described in detail in the Competition Authority’s
“Report of Investigation of the Proposal whereby Coillte Teoranta would
acquire the majority of the Issued Share Capital of Balcas Limited
[1].
(d)
The notified arrangements
5. The
notified arrangements consisted of a Letter of Undertaking (dated 1991), a
Coillte Allocation Scheme (CAS) list of mills, a CAS Audit (October 1992)
detailing the areas for examination of sawmills wishing to qualify for the
scheme, CAS overall objectives, a sample letter concerning the audit, a CAS
return form for the year 1991, an Explanatory Note on CAS, Interim CAS
Specifications (July 1991), CAS Application Form, an Outline Proposal CAS for
1991, proposed specifications, Large Sawlog Quota Scheme, Small Sawlog Quota
Scheme, Mill inspection form 1986 - Large Sawlog Quota Scheme and Mill
inspection form 1986 - Small Sawlog Quota Scheme. The arrangements came into
operation in January 1991. They replaced a previous scheme which had been
administered by the Forest Service of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry
since 1978.
(e)
Submissions by the parties.
6. Coillte
made various arguments in support of its request for a certificate or, in the
event of a refusal by the Authority to issue a certificate, a licence. As these
are not considered relevant, they are not reproduced here.
(f)
Subsequent Developments
7. On
1 July 1997 the Authority wrote to solicitors for Coillte asking whether the
notified scheme was still in effect and, if not, whether Coillte wished to
continue to seek a certificate and/or licence for the original notified scheme.
On 29 July 1997 solicitors for Coillte replied, stating that the original
notified allocation scheme was no longer in operation but that Coillte did not
wish to withdraw the notification. The Authority is aware that the Coillte
Allocation Scheme system which is the subject of this notification was
superseded in mid-1996 by a new log sales system, the Timber Sales System (TSS)
[2].
The
Assessment
8. The
Authority has considered what the status of a decision on a certificate or
licence related to an expired agreement dating from before the commencement of
Section 4(1). Under the original
Section 6(7) of the
Competition Act, 1991, an
aggrieved party could not seek relief in respect of any agreement, decision or
concerted practice which had been duly notified to the Authority until the
Authority had made a decision (to issue or not to issue a certificate, or to
grant or refuse a licence), and any appeal under
Section 9 had been concluded.
In other words, under the 1991 Act a third party could seek damages for the
period between notification and decision, but had to wait until after the
decision and any possible appeal to do so. However, Section 6 of the
Competition Act, 1996, modified Section 6(7) of the 1991 Act by providing that
no relief could be granted in respect of the period beginning on the
commencement of Section 4 and ending on the date that the Authority made a
decision or an appeal was concluded. In this case the agreement expired before
the Authority could make a decision on it. The Authority therefore considers
that a decision on the issue of a certificate in this case would have no legal
meaning or effect.
9. A
similar position arises in respect of the possible grant of a licence. Under
Section 7(3) of the 1991 Act, a licence may be made retrospective to the date
of notification, where the notification concerns an agreement which came into
existence after the commencement of Section 4(1). However, there is no
provision under the Act for the retrospective licensing of agreements which
were already in existence at the commencement of Section 4(1). Since the
agreement has already expired, to grant a licence now would again have no legal
meaning or effect.
The
Decision
10. The
Competition Authority considers that, as the notified agreement has expired, a
decision to issue or not to issue a certificate has no legal consequences and
that therefore there is no necessity to make any such decision. Equally, as no
licence can now be awarded for the period during which the agreement operated,
a licence request is equally redundant. The Authority has therefore decided to
close the file without considering whether or not the agreement merits a
certificate or licence.
For
the Competition Authority,
Isolde
Goggin,
Member.
19
November 1998
[1]
Published by the Stationery Office and available from the Government
Publications Sale Office, Sun Alliance House, Molesworth St., Dublin 2.
© 1998 Irish Competition Authority
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECompA/1998/527.html