On July 28, the Competition Council (the CC) made a decision to allow the agreement announced by JSC "Latvenergo", SJSC "Ceļu satiksmes drošības direkcija" and JSC "Unifiedpost", which will ensure the interoperability of public electric car charging networks. As a result of the agreement, customers of JSC "Latvenergo" Elektrum Drive charging network will be able to charge in the e-mobi network of SJSC "Ceļu satiksmes drošības direkcija" using JSC "Latvenergo" authentication tools and payment procedures, and vice versa. This will ensure smooth user authentication, payment and related services.
As part of the agreement, it is planned to preserve the mobile apps of both SJSC "Ceļu satiksmes drošības direkcija" and JSC "Latvenergo" charging networks, because the creation of a common app is not necessary to achieve the goal of the agreement, and the development of such app could hinder the implementation of the agreement.
Assessment of the impact of the agreement
Considering that the charging price, regardless of the chosen subscription service provider (authentication and payment provider), must correspond to the tariffs of the chosen charging point operator, the terms of the agreement provide for mutual information of competitors on charging tariffs and their application methods. Advance notification is necessary so that the service is provided to end consumers at the appropriate tariffs at that particular moment.
The CC explains that the agreement provides the exchange of information only about the services provided to the clients of the other party, which reduces the amount of information exchange to the minimum necessary for the execution of the agreement.
It follows from the Article 11 of the Competition Law that agreements on the direct or indirect determination of prices or tariffs in any way or the rules of their formation, as well as on the exchange of information relating to prices and sales rules, are prohibited. However, the competition law allows agreements between competitors that contribute to the improvement of the production or sale of goods or economic development, creating benefits for consumers. It is important that these agreements may not impose restrictions on the participating companies that are not necessary to achieve the stated goals, nor should they allow the elimination of competition in a significant part of a specific market.
Having established that the specific notified agreement is a subject to the prohibition of agreements set out in Article 11 of the Competition Law, the CC evaluated the efficiency benefits of such cooperation and the impact on competition. According to the information provided by the companies and at the disposal of the institution, the CC concluded that the agreement announced by JSC "Latvenergo", SJSC "Ceļu satiksmes drošības direkcija" and JSC "Unifiedpost" will generally contribute to the improvement of the sale of goods, creating benefits for consumers, making the electric car charging service easier to use, more affordable as well as better quality. Also, the CC concluded that the announced agreement does not impose restrictions on the relevant market participants that are not necessary to achieve the mentioned goals, nor does it give an opportunity to eliminate competition in a significant part of the market, thus it is permissible.
Conducting regular assessments of the arrangement
Although, in CC's opinion, there is currently no evidence that the restrictions on the competition will exceed the efficiency gains obtained as a result of the agreement, it is practically impossible to accurately predict how the identified specific markets will develop and what the real impact of such an agreement on the specific markets could be in the long term. Therefore, the CC invites the participants of the agreement to carry out an individual self-assessments of the specific agreement after one year from the date of entry into force of the decision and then, in accordance with the significant changes in the actual and legal circumstances, to evaluate all the criteria contained in the second part of Article 11 of the Competition Law, but especially to consider that, whether the criterion of mandatory necessity is still met within the framework of the agreement, that is, whether the competition restrictions provided for within the framework of the agreement are still absolutely necessary for the fulfilment of the agreement.