The current Swedish Competition Act (Competition Act)2 entered into force on 1 November 2008 and governs all types of actions that may distort competition. The Competition Act aims to incorporate EU competition law as far as possible. It is therefore interpreted in accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
The Swedish Competition Authority (SCA) is the central administrative authority for the administration and enforcement of competition law in Sweden. It is entrusted with investigative powers and, to some extent, decision-making powers. In behavioural cases (i.e., anticompetitive agreements and abuse of dominant market positions), the SCA rather acts as a prosecutor and will have to make its cases before a court. If the SCA can prove a violation, a court may impose a corporate fine of up to 10 per cent of company turnover. However, the SCA may itself impose an injunction to stop ongoing infringements. Following an amendment to the Competition Act on 1 January 2018, the SCA can also adopt decisions in merger control cases.
As of 1 September 2016, a reorganisation of the court system was made effective, where the Market Court, formerly the highest competition court, ceased to exist. The reorganisation was intended to create a more unified and concentrated judicial system for competition cases. The Patent and Market Court (PMC), a division within the Stockholm District Court, is now the competition court of first instance. Its decisions and judgments can be appealed to the Patent and Market Court of Appeal (PMCA), a division within the Svea Court of Appeal in Stockholm. A leave to appeal is required if the PMCA is to hear a case. The PMCA is, in general, the court of last instance. However, in certain instances, the PMCA can grant leave for a judgment or decision to be appealed to the Supreme Court. If that were to happen, the Supreme Court would also need to grant a leave to appeal before the case could be heard.
Breach of the competition rules is not a criminal offence in Sweden. However, a trading prohibition may be imposed on an individual in cases of particularly serious cartel infringements. The SCA will seek a trading prohibition only where it is considered to be in the public interest and the individual has seriously failed to fulfil his or her obligations. In circumstances where either the company benefits from leniency or the individual has contributed and personally cooperated to a significant extent, the SCA may grant immunity from a trading prohibition.3
In December 2016, Sweden implemented the EU Directive on Antitrust Damages Actions by enacting a new Antitrust Damages Act.4 The purpose is to facilitate injured parties in litigating their competition damages claims. The Act includes provisions that clarify and simplify court proceedings and introduces several new reforms, such as a rebuttable presumption that cartels cause harm; clearer limitation periods; and that a final infringement decision will constitute full proof of the occurrence of a competition law violation in a follow-on damages case.
Chapter 2 of the Competition Act holds the substantive provisions relevant for cartels and other anticompetitive agreements. Chapter 2, Sections 1 and 2 are modelled on Article 101(1) and 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Section 1 prohibits the cooperation between undertakings that has as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in the market to an appreciable extent, whereas Section 2 sets out the possible exemptions to the prohibition found in Section 1.
The Swedish leniency programme was amended in 2014 to better reflect the EU leniency system. The new leniency regime introduced a marker system whereby a company may apply for a marker and submit limited information about an ongoing infringement. The minimum requirement to obtain a marker is to submit information on the market affected by the infringement, the other companies involved and the nature of the infringement. To secure the marker, the company must submit a complete application within a specified period. Unless the company with the marker fails to submit the outstanding information, another company cannot jump the queue for immunity.
i Significant cases
Insurance services – reviewability of dawn raids
In April and June 2017, the SCA conducted a dawn raid against a number of insurance companies (Söderberg & Partners et al) for suspected bid rigging in public tenders. This was done after a prior decision by the PMC allowing the raid. During the raid the SCA 'mirrored' several hard drives and, with the consent of the companies, brought and reviewed them at the premises of the SCA. However, when the SCA copied certain documents from the hard drives and included them in the case file, one company appealed the measure to copy the documents, arguing that the documents were outside the scope of the PMC's dawn raid decision. After both the PMC and the PMCA had rejected the appeal, the Supreme Court heard the case.5 The Court stated that if a company contests the SCA's right to review or copy certain material on the grounds that the measure is out of scope of the original dawn raid decision, the SCA must refer the dispute to the Swedish Enforcement Agency and request its assistance in order to review or copy the contested material. In this case, the SCA had not requested such assistance, which the Supreme Court found to be a violation of the company's right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court stated, however, that the appropriate remedy for such a violation was economic compensation, rather than to create a new right of review before the PMC. The decisions of the lower courts were thus affirmed.
Data communications services in Gothenburg – bid rigging?
The SCA sued TeliaSonera, Sweden's largest telecommunications operator, and GothNet, a local network operator in Gothenburg, and requested a total fine of 35 million kronor for having formed a bid-rigging cartel during a public procurement procedure by the City of Gothenburg in 2009. The SCA claimed that when the City of Gothenburg procured data communication services, TeliaSonera and GothNet agreed that TeliaSonera would refrain from submitting a tender in the procurement, even though GothNet and TeliaSonera were competitors. Subsequently winning the bid, GothNet contracted TeliaSonera as a subcontractor. The PMC ruled in favour of the SCA's claim and ordered each of the parties to pay 8 million kronor in fines. TeliaSonera appealed the judgment, which was reversed by the PMCA. In its judgment from February 2018,6 the PMCA stated that the nature of the information provided by TeliaSonera to GothNet entailing that TeliaSonera would not be submitting a bid in the procurement was a concerted practice within the meaning of the competition rules. However, considering the economic and legal context of the procurement in which the coordination took place, the court held that the information exchange could not be regarded anticompetitive by object. Since there was not sufficient evidence of anticompetitive effects, the SCA's claim was rejected.
Moving companies – market sharing?
The SCA sued three companies in the moving company sector, Alfa Quality Moving, NFB Transport Systems and ICM Kungsholms, for a total fine of 42 million kronor. The companies had in two merger transactions included non-compete clauses of five years, which, according to the SCA, were too far-reaching. The SCA claimed that the clauses constituted illegal market sharing agreements. However, the PMC held that the clauses were not anticompetitive by object and that the SCA had not shown any anticompetitive effects. The PMCA affirmed the judgment on appeal.7 The court pointed out that non-compete clauses may be necessary for the successful implementation of a merger transaction, since such clauses provide the buyer with a certain degree of security. The SCA had argued that the moving companies knowingly had exceeded the three-year period outlined in the Commission's guiding notice on ancillary restraints. However, the PMCA found that the three-year preiod reflects the duration under which companies normally can assume to be protected under the Commission notice rather than the maximum duration allowed for a non-compete clause. Accordingly, the court did not hold the non-compete clauses to be anticompetitive by object. The PMCA further concluded that the SCA did not provide evidence of any anticompetitive effects.
ii Trends, developments and strategies
In the past, the SCA has launched cartel cases against companies in the asphalt and petrol markets. For the past few years, the SCA has devoted greater resources to develop its cartel detection methods. Sectors that have been investigated more recently include construction, electronic equipment, and retail. On average, the SCA conducts a handful of dawn raids per year, and it receives approximately five leniency applications per year, of which approximately half are summary applications.8
In December 2018, the SCA conducted a questionnaire survey of the level of corruption in the construction industry.9 Among the responding firms, 49 per cent believed that there were cartels in the industry, and 29 per cent of those believed that cartels operated on a regular basis.
The fight against cartels is one of the main priorities of the SCA, and measures relating to the detection of cartels has increased, especially concerning bid-rigging cartels in public procurement procedures. There are several ongoing investigations at the SCA of companies suspected of having colluded at the bidding stage.
III ANTITRUST: RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENTS AND DOMINANCE
Chapter 2, Section 7 of the Competition Act sets out the prohibition against abuse of a dominant position. The provision is modelled on Article 102 TFEU.
i Significant cases
Access to waste collection infrastructure
In February 2018, the SCA imposed an injunction on FTI, a waste management company, ordering it to withdraw a contract termination with its competitor, TMR. FTI allows packaging producers to fulfil their legal obligation by offering a service to collect and recycle packaging waste emanating from their products in exchange for a weight-based fee. FTI's waste collection is primarily based on a nationwide infrastructure of public waste containers. Since 2012, FTI had granted access to this infrastructure to TMR, which offered its services in competition with FTI. In 2016, FTI terminated the access contract with TMR. Having investigated the case, the SCA found that the infrastructure of public waste containers constituted an essential facility and that FTI had abused its dominant position by refusing to deal with TMR. The PMC upheld the injunction on appeal.10 FTI has appealed the decision, and the case is pending before the PMCA.
Tobacco coolers labelling system
The SCA sued Swedish Match, a major supplier of snus (a moist tobacco product), for abuse of dominance. The SCA claimed that Swedish Match had foreclosed its competitors by implementing a uniform system for shelf labels in snus coolers that it had lent to retail stores. Although Swedish Match permitted sales of other suppliers in those coolers, the SCA argued that the labelling system restricted competitors from marketing their products in terms of price and brand, especially since the marketing of tobacco products in general is subject to significant legal restrictions. Swedish Match, on the other hand, had argued, inter alia, that its intentions were to ensure that the labelling system complied with the strict marketing regulations relating to tobacco products. The PMC found that Swedish Match had abused its dominant position, and imposed fines of 38 million kronor. However, the PMCA reversed and ruled in favour of Swedish Match. In its judgment from June 2018,11 the PMCA held that the labelling system indeed was capable of foreclosing competitors by way of restricting their marketing possibilities. However, the court further held that such exclusionary behaviour by a dominant undertaking is objectively justified – a concept rarely accepted by the EU courts – when the purpose is to ensure compliance with tobacco marketing regulations.
Stock exchange services – foreclosure of competitor
The SCA sued the operator of the Stockholm stock exchange, Nasdaq, for abuse of dominance and requested fines of 28 million kronor. The case revolved around a data centre provided by Verizon. Nasdaq leased one area in the data centre, and offered its customers, such as high frequency traders, the opportunity to rent space in the same area. The co-location with Nasdaq gave the customers a fast connection to Nasdaq's trading systems. The events were triggered when Burgundy, a Nasdaq competitor, publicly announced that it had entered into a deal with Verizon and intended to move into the same data centre as Nasdaq. In effect, Burgundy would become part of Nasdaq's co-location service without having to set up its own service. Nasdaq responded by putting pressure on Verizon, threatening to move to another data centre if Burgundy was allowed into the centre. The SCA did not argue that access to the data centre was essential. Instead, it relied on the concept of a 'naked restriction', claiming that Nasdaq's reaction to Burgundy's announcement had no other purpose than to restrict competition. The PMC,12 however, held that this was a normal exercise of contractual rights and competition on the merits. Consequently, the PMC rejected the SCA's claim. The judgment has been appealed and the case is pending before the PMCA.
ii Trends, developments and strategies
The SCA is continuing to investigate markets and sectors at risk of competition concerns. Certain sectors are more closely scrutinised by the SCA due to previous regulations that have created structural imbalances in the market (such as the pharmacies and telecommunications sectors). As abuse of dominance cases are difficult to prove, the SCA has formed a division specialised in such anticompetitive behaviours.
In Sweden, many sectors have previously been characterised by a monopoly or few companies dominating the market. Many of these markets are now in the process of being, or have recently been, deregulated, which has often resulted in a market with non-existent, or low, competition. Therefore, the SCA has focused its efforts on these markets. Of particular interest is the market for passenger transport – both public transport in the cities and nationwide transportation of passengers.
IV SECTORAL COMPETITION: MARKET INVESTIGATIONS AND REGULATED INDUSTRIES
i Significant cases
E-commerce and the sharing economy13
In 2018, the SCA analysed the Swedish e-commerce and sharing economy sectors, and concluded that the emergence of these industries has resulted in increased price transparency and price competition, which is beneficial for consumers. Swedish e-commerce companies are facing increased foreign competition, as this sector has grown significantly over the past few years. The technical development of a digital payment infrastructure has made it more secure for consumers to purchase products or services online. The SCA's investigation found that a large majority of the sales in the retail sector are still made in physical stores, although e-commerce constitutes a competitive restraint on the physical stores. The SCA also stressed that the increased digitalisation and technical improvement of the e-economy has resulted in new challenges for competition authorities to tackle, for instance that the higher degree of price transparency may facilitate price collusion. The SCA indicated that the increased digitalisation of companies' business models in the e-commerce and sharing economy sectors will require the SCA to implement more advanced and sophisticated investigation routines.
The investigation found that the sharing economy sector is largely based on digital platforms, which give rise to network effects. The services provided within the sharing economy increase the supply on the market, which results in lower prices and increased choice for consumers. A platform can decide to offer its services for a low price or without charging for its services at all in order to expand more rapidly. A large number of users and collection of user data can give a platform significant market power, which might not be reflected by its revenue figures. The SCA's investigation found that there is a risk that the current merger control regime does not cover concentrations between platform companies with low revenue but that have significant market power and the potential to impede or hinder the development of effective competition. The SCA has indicated that one solution could be to complement the current turnover thresholds with a 'size of transaction' system.
ii Trends, developments and strategies
The SCA may commence a market investigation either by itself or after a complaint. The sector investigation may result in an additional investigation of a specific undertaking or the provision of guidance to the undertakings concerned so that they can modify their behaviour in order to avoid an additional investigation.
Similarly to the Commission, one of the SCA's priorities in 2018 concerned the development of the e-economy and sharing economy, and how the growth of these sectors will affect the competition authorities' enforcement function as well as the risk of anticompetitive conduct. The SCA has pointed out that the growth of the e-economy has, for instance, resulted in increased price transparency, which is beneficial for consumers as it increases price competition but, correspondingly, facilitates the risk of collusion between companies. The SCA has recognised that the authority's investigation methods are challenged with the increased digitalisation of the economy as the competition rules need to be applied to digitalised (rather than offline) market conditions. It can be expected that the development of the e-economy and sharing economy will remain one of the SCA's main priorities.
V STATE AID
There is no specific national legislation concerning state aid. However, Articles 107–109 TFEU have been implemented through lex specialis on the application of EU state aid (2013:338), which entered into force in July 2013. In addition, the Local Government Act14 states that giving support and financial aid to individual businesses is forbidden. According to Chapter 2 Article 8 of the Local Government Act, municipalities and counties are allowed to implement measures to promote local business in general, but not to target their efforts towards a specific company.
The Swedish Transparency Act15 is based on the state aid rules, and requires reporting to the Commission of all publicly owned or financed operations reaching certain thresholds.
i Significant cases
State aid cases are not very common in Swedish courts. Most cases concern the sale of facilities or businesses from municipalities to private operators for prices significantly lower than the market price. Sweden has also been under review of the Commission multiple times, as only the Commission can approve targeted state aid.
The Supreme Administrative Court has on two occasions in recent years heard cases on state aid.
Sale of a property
The municipality of Karlskrona decided in February 2008 to sell a property to the construction company NCC for 5 million kronor, despite a higher bid for the property from another interested buyer.16 The Supreme Administrative Court stated in its judgment that the municipality had failed to conduct an independent valuation of the property, and not considered the higher bid. The Supreme Administrative Court therefore concluded that the agreement entailed individually targeted support to NCC, and that the contract with NCC therefore was contrary to Chapter 2 Article 8 of the Local Government Act.
In the second case, which was announced simultaneously to the above-mentioned, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that that there was no question of illegal state aid.17 In March 2008, the City Council of Årjäng decided, through an exchange contract with a natural person, to transfer a property for 650,000 kronor and to acquire another property for 4.9 million kronor. An independent valuation was not conducted, and the sale of the property was not publicly announced. Shortly after the transaction, the municipality made an independent valuation of the properties through an independent valuation company. The first property was then valued at 600,000 kronor and the latter at 5.5 million kronor. The court found that the municipality had not intended to directly support the acquiring company and that the transaction in itself did not constitute such support. Hence, the appeal was rejected.
Publicly owned company18
In February 2009, a company owned by the municipality of Vänersborg purchased a factory consisting of two properties for 17 million kronor from a private operator. Six months later, the municipality sold the properties to Hammar Nordic Plugg AB, which only three weeks later resold the properties for 40 million kronor. After a complaint to the Commission, the Commission decided that the difference between the price should be repaid to the municipality. The case was appealed to the CJEU, which upheld the decision of the Commission.
The Commission approving Swedish state aid
In recent years, the Commission has on several occasions approved financial support from Swedish municipalities for different infrastructure projects. For example, in 2013, the Commission authorised the municipality of Uppsala to co-finance a new multi-purpose arena.19 The Commission stated that the public financing was proportional to the objectives pursued. Furthermore, in 2014, the Commission approved state aid granted by Sweden to the operator of Västerås Airport in the form of capital injections from its public shareholders, and under a national scheme for aid to regional airports.20 In 2016, the Commission also approved state aid granted by Sweden to the operator of the two airports of Sundsvall and Skellefteå.21
ii Trends, developments and strategies
The majority of state aid cases in Sweden are related to municipalities selling property at significantly lower prices than market value. There has, however, been a decrease in the number of such cases in recent years.
The SCA has considered it unnecessary to submit a report to the Commission in accordance with the Transparency Act when the state or the municipalities do not control manufacturing undertakings with a turnover exceeding €40 million.
Certain projects concerning infrastructure facilities in the more remote areas of Sweden are dependent on financial support and state aid. Those projects will depend heavily on authorisation from the Commission.
VI MERGER REVIEW
In 2018, the SCA received 80 merger notifications. Two cases went to Phase II, of which one was cleared following the in-depth investigation. The second case is currently pending.
A concentration meets the thresholds and needs to be notified to the SCA if the combined aggregate turnover in Sweden of all undertakings concerned exceeds 1 billion kronor, and at least each of two undertakings concerned has a turnover in Sweden exceeding 200 million kronor.
Where the first threshold of 1 billion kronor is met, but the second threshold is not, the SCA may order a party to the concentration to notify a concentration if there are particular grounds for doing so. Such grounds may be when an undertaking already holds a strong market position and acquires a smaller or newly established undertaking. The acquirer may also in such circumstances submit a voluntary notification. In general, the SCA encourages undertakings to make voluntary notifications of mergers.
i Significant cases
In December 2018, three dairy producers (Arla Foods, Norrmejerier and Falköpings Mejeri) notified their intention to acquire the intellectual property licensing company Svensk Mjölk via a joint venture arrangement. Svensk Mjölk licenses several cheese brands to some 20 companies, including dairy producers, food wholesalers and retailers. After an initial market survey, the SCA has decided to open an in-depth review of the case that is currently pending.
In the autumn of 2018, the SCA cleared the security company Nokas' acquisition of Avarn Security after an in-depth review in Phase II. The merger parties operated on the market for security guards, technical security systems and operation centres. The market essentially consisted of the two merger parties and one other competitor, Securitas. In, Sweden, the merged entity's market share would amount to amount to 25–45 per cent, whereas Securitas' would be around 50–60 per cent. In its effects analysis, the SCA analysed bidding data from the past three years. It concluded that the merging parties were not close competitors, which meant that the concentration would not significantly reduce competition.
District heating pipes
In October 2015, the SCA initiated a Phase II investigation to examine the notified acquisition by Logstor of Powerpipe. The relevant product market was the production and sale of district heating pipes. In February 2016, the SCA filed a lawsuit to prohibit the concentration. However, the lower court found that the merger would not significantly impede the existence or development of effective competition and approved the merger. The SCA appealed the judgment to the PMCA. This was the first merger case in 18 years to reach an appellate court. The key issue was the scope of the relevant geographic market. The SCA argued that the relevant geographic market solely covered the Swedish market. However, the PMCA24 held that the market comprised the EEA and Switzerland. The PMCA further held that the merged entity would not acquire a dominant position on this market, nor did other circumstances indicate that the concentration would significantly impede the existence or development of effective competition. Consequently, the PMCA affirmed the judgment.
ii Trends, developments and strategies
In comparison to previous years, the number of notifications to the SCA has increased steadily in Sweden and a majority of the notifications have been cleared in Phase I. In cases where there is an absence of vertical links and horizontal overlaps, the SCA often handles the matter with speed and a decision may be received significantly quicker than 25 working days.
Another topic of interest is that the Swedish merger control regime makes it possible for the SCA to request a transaction to be notified if there are particular reasons to so do, and even if the turnover thresholds are not exceeded. The acquirer may also in such circumstances decide to submit a notification voluntarily. The SCA has issued guidance that explains that a voluntary notification should be considered if the transaction can be expected to awaken fears and criticism among customers or competitors. The feature of voluntary notification is a particular mechanism in Swedish merger control.
In 2015, the SCA introduced further guidance for notifications and the assessment of concentrations. The guidance is an update of earlier guidance issued in 2010, and contains more accurate and updated information on merger control based on previous experience of the SCA. The purpose of the guidance is to improve awareness of the investigations of the SCA, contribute to greater predictability and ensure good conditions for cooperation between the parties and the SCA, contributing to a more efficient and effective investigation.
As of 1 January 2018, the Competition Act was amended to grant the SCA extended decision-making powers in merger control cases. One argument for the reform was to increase conformity with the merger control procedure of the Commission and in other Member States. However, the reform did not receive a uniformly positive response, and it has been argued that the safeguards surrounding the SCA's decision-making process are not as well developed as, for example, the Commission's. It remains to be seen how the reform will be implemented in practice.
As of September 2016, a reorganisation of the court system was made effective. The reorganisation was intended to create a more unified and concentrated judicial system for competition cases. Since the inception of the new court system, the SCA has so far lost all cases that have reached the PMCA. As a result, the SCA has indicated that it will take a more relaxed stance on litigation in the future, and focus on rule of law issues in its decision-making procedure.
1 Peter Forsberg is a partner, and Johan Holmquist and David Olander are associates at Hannes Snellman Attorneys Ltd.
2 The Swedish Competition Act (2008:579).
3 KKVFS 2012:2.
4 The Antitrust Damages Act (2016:964).
5 Supreme Court, decision of 30 November 2018 in Case No. Ö 5652-17.
6 PMCA, judgment of 13 February 2018 in Case No. PMT 761-17.
7 PMCA, judgment of 29 November 2017 in Case No. 7498-17.
8 During the period 2010–2014.
9 Report series 2018:10.
10 PMC, decision of 21 January 2019 in Case No. PMÄ 2741-18.
11 PMCA, judgment of 29 June 2018 in Case No. PMT 1988-17.
12 PMC, judgment of 15 January 2018 in Case No. PMT 7000-15.
13 Report series 2018:1.
14 The Local Government Act (1991:900).
15 The Swedish Transparency Act (2005:590).
16 Supreme Administrative Court 2010 ref 119.
17 Supreme Administrative Court 2010 ref 119 II.
18 Case T-253/12 Hammar Nordic Plugg AB v. Commission .
19 State aid: Commission authorises public co-financing of Uppsala arena in Sweden. www.europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-394_en.htm (2 May 2013).
20 State aid: Commission decisions on public financing of airports and airlines in Germany, Belgium, Italy and Sweden – further details. www.europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-544_en.htm (1 October 2014).
21 State aid: Commission approves public service aid to Sundsvall Timrå and Skellefteå airports in Sweden. www.europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-103_en.htm (19 January 2016).
22 SCA, Case No. 661/2018.
23 SCA, Case No. 425/2018.
24 PMCA, judgment of 24 November 2016 in Case No. 7499-16.