The Danish Supreme Court has determined that Deutz AG, a German engine manufacturer, and its Danish distributor Diesel Motor Nordic have violated Danish and European competition laws. Their unlawful actions have disrupted train services across Denmark, resulting in significant inconvenience for travelers.

Jakob Hald, Director General of the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority, stated: “This case involves serious infringements of competition law. Deutz has both abused its dominant position and entered into an anti-competitive agreement with its Danish distributor, Diesel Motor Nordic.”

When the Danish State Railways (DSB) selected a different supplier instead of Diesel Motor Nordic to refurbish its IC3 trains, Deutz and Diesel Motor Nordic hindered the new supplier’s access to essential Deutz spare parts. This action was taken for their own benefit, resulting in multiple trains being out of operation for extended durations, thereby causing inconvenience to passengers.

DSB faced challenges in renovating its trains within the stipulated timeframe and budget. Consequently, DSB had to acquire spare parts at elevated costs from Diesel Motor Nordic and, in some instances, resorted to using spare parts intended for different engines, necessitating modifications by DSB. This unlawful behavior also adversely affected a smaller competitor (Fleco) that could not meet its contractual obligations with DSB.

The Supreme Court determined that the Competition Council was justified in concluding that Deutz engaged in abusive practices by refusing to supply and hindering the parallel importation of exclusive spare parts to Fleco, thereby breaching competition law. Deutz’s actions aimed to prevent Fleco from executing its contractual obligations with DSB.

Concerning the anti-competitive agreement between Deutz and Diesel Motor Nordic, the Supreme Court noted that the agreement’s purpose was to provide complete territorial protection for Diesel Motor Nordic. This constituted a restriction by object, which eliminated the Competition Council’s need to prove any anti-competitive effects.