The Competition Tribunal dismissed a lawsuit by MICOM S.A. against ENAP, for unjustified refusal to deal and exclusionary practices against the plaintiff.
In its ruling, the Tribunal stated that it concluded that ENAP’s refusal to accept MICOM as a client had commercial justifications, therefore that conduct cannot be deemed anticompetitive. There was no proof that allowed the Tribunal to establish that ENAP’s technical and infrastructure demands to accept MICOM as a client were arbitrary or discriminatory. On the contrary, they seem justified by the need to distribute liquid gasoline safely.
However, the Tribunal considered that in the case that MICOM accepted to pay the gasoline it acquires in cash, and if it proved that it has the necessary infrastructure –either owned or rented to third parties different from ENAP– to handle gasoline safely, and in accordance to current legislation and norms, ENAP could not refuse to register it in its Client Roster, nor could it refuse to celebrate the necessary contracts to provide MICOM, so that the latter could act as a wholesale gasoline distributor.