Spain investigates 3 potential cases of abuse of dominance by Exolum
Key Facts
Spain's competition authority has opened proceedings that could lead to sanctions against Exolum to investigate 3 potential cases of abuse of a dominant position, according to a statement from the authority. The case concerns liquid hydrocarbon transport and storage services within the company's infrastructure activities. The investigation also covers services related to biofuels and chemicals, according to the same statement. The suspected practices concern Exolum's pricing, as well as the terms of access to its facilities for a rival operator. The authority said its Competition Directorate had inspected the company's headquarters as part of the case examining those potential practices.
On pricing, the authority is examining suspected "excessive pricing" for services Exolum provides in the activities under investigation. It said in its statement that tariff increases may have allowed the company to maintain high margins on these services. The authority also linked those increases to the possibility of successive price increases borne by consumers. This aspect of the case therefore covers both the tariffs charged by the company and the potential impact of their increase on prices for end consumers. The link between tariff increases, sustained high margins and the passing on of increases to consumers remains among the suspicions being investigated by the Competition Directorate.
The authority is also examining suspicions that Exolum denied a rival operator access to transport and storage facilities at the port of Tarragona, according to its statement. It described the suspected conduct as a "refusal to grant access", referring to the competitor's use of the infrastructure concerned. It said this possible refusal could limit the operator's ability to compete in downstream markets along the supply chain. This falls within the authority's oversight of third-party access to liquid hydrocarbon transport and storage facilities. According to the authority's report on Exolum's activities, that oversight requires access to be provided on "objective and non-discriminatory" terms.
Before opening proceedings, the Competition Directorate reviewed reports issued by the Regulatory Supervision Chamber, according to the sequence outlined in the authority's statement. The background to the case also included a dispute over network access brought before the authority. The action therefore followed the directorate's review of regulatory materials, alongside the dispute concerning use of the infrastructure. Exolum's facilities in Spain include a pipeline network spanning 4,000 kilometres, according to the authority's annual report on the company's activities. Its Spanish infrastructure also includes 39 storage facilities with total capacity of around 8 million cubic metres, according to the report.
At group level, Exolum lists a network of 66 storage facilities on its website as part of its description of the scale of its operations. The company says it also has 50 operational airport facilities, which it includes in the group's operating footprint. The group's stated storage capacity is 11 million cubic metres, according to the company's profile page. This capacity is spread across 10 countries, reflecting the geographic scope covered by the group figures. The pipeline network and storage facility figures in the Spanish authority's report refer to Exolum's activities within Spain, compared with the totals the company publishes for group operations.
In the next stage, the case is subject to a stated maximum period of 24 months for a decision following the opening of proceedings, according to Spain's competition authority. This is the deadline the authority has set for completing the process concerning the practices under investigation and reaching a decision on them. The authority stressed in its statement that opening proceedings "does not prejudge" the investigation's final outcome. The practices attributed to Exolum therefore remain suspicions, and opening the case does not constitute proof of infringements. These suspicions will be resolved in the final decision in the proceedings the authority has opened against the company.