Irish Competition Authority Decisions
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
Irish Competition Authority Decisions >>
TCD Students Union / STA Travel Ltd [1999] IECA 541 (24th March, 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECompA/1999/541.html
Cite as:
[1999] IECA 541
[
New search]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
TCD Students Union / STA Travel Ltd [1999] IECA 541 (24th March, 1999)
COMPETITION
AUTHORITY
Competition
Authority Decision of 24 March 1999 relating to a proceeding under Section 4 of
the Competition Act, 1991.
Notification
No.
CA/21/97
- Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union (TCDSU),
STA
Travel Limited (STA Travel).
Decision
No. 541
Price
£0.60
£1.00
including postage
Competition
Authority Decision of 24 March 1999 relating to a proceeding under Section 4 of
the Competition Act, 1991.
Notification
No.
CA/21/97
- Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union (TCDSU), STA Travel Limited (STA
Travel).
Decision
No. 541
Introduction.
1.
Notification was made by
TCDSU
on
24 October, 1997 with a request for a Certificate under
Section 4(4) of the
Competition Act, 1991 or, in the event of a refusal by the Competition
Authority to issue a certificate, a licence under
Section 4(2), in respect of
an Agency and Exclusive Dealing Agreement between
TCDSU
and STA Travel.
The
Facts
(a)
Subject of the Notification
2.
The notification concerns an exclusive dealing arrangement dated the 20 June
1996 between TCDSU and STA Travel. Under the proposed arrangements STA Travel
will provide TCDSU with travel related services (airline tickets, ferry
tickets, train tickets, car hire etc.) for onward sale to students and staff at
Trinity College.
(b)
The Parties Involved
3.
The parties to the Agreement are
TCDSU
and STA Travel. TCDSU is a private company limited by guarantee. TCDSU acts as
a travel agency for students and staff at Trinity College Dublin and trades
under the name Dublin University Student Travel (DUST). STA Travel is an
English company having its registered offices at 6 Wrights Lane, London, W8
6TA. It provides student and youth travel services to UK based agencies.
(c)
The Product and the Market
4.
The market in this notification is the provision of travel services to
full-time third level students and youths (under 26) in Ireland. In its
submission to the Authority, TCDSU stated that it is primarily engaged in the
provision of ‘discounted travel services’ for full time third level
students and for persons under 26 years of age and that these two categories of
travellers represent a market which is distinct from the market encompassing
the services for the general travelling public.
5.
According to TCDSU there are three companies that specialise in student travel
in the State: USIT Ireland Limited (USIT), SAYIT and DUST. USIT Ireland is the
largest firm in the youth travel market with a network of 17 shops and a
turnover of £42m in 1997. DUST has one outlet and a turnover of less than
£200,000 for the period up to the 30 of June 1997. DUST provides
‘discounted travel services’ to the Trinity College Community
including campus staff. It competes directly with USIT in the provision of
such discounted services and in the provision of travel/work packages for
students visiting the US.
SAYIT
provide student travel related services in Cork.
6.
The market for discounted youth travel services is represented by firms
providing services directly to persons under the age of 26 by (such as
airlines, ferries, rail companies, etc.) as well as general travel related
service providers. A large number of airlines have published student/youth
fares which may be accessed by every travel agency in Ireland. Student travel
agencies, therefore, compete with general purpose travel agencies which sell to
students and non-students alike. Students and staff on the Trinity Campus are
free to shop around other travel agents by telephone or otherwise for better
deals that may be offered.
7.
The Authority considers that the relevant market is the provision of travel
services to students and persons under the age of 26 in this case. Such
services may be provided by dedicated student travel operators or by other
firms in the general transport and travel services market. The geographic
market is the State.
(d)
The Notified Arrangements
8.
The notification concerns an Agreement whereby STA Travel will provide TCDSU
with travel related services on an agency basis for onward sale to students and
staff at Trinity College.
9.
The Agreement is contained in two documents entitled ‘Agency
Agreement’ and a ‘Partnership Agreement’. The Agency
Agreement details arrangements between the parties for the processing of
passenger tickets and other sales by TCDSU acting as agent for STA Travel Ltd.
Under that agreement STA Travel appoints TCDSU as its agent for the sale of its
products in the territory (UK and Eire). TCDSU undertakes to promote and market
STA products in the territory and to carry on the sale of STA products at the
relevant premises.
10.
The Partnership Agreement provides that STA Travel will give TCDSU an interest
free loan repayable over three years. TCDSU agrees not to sell any directly
competing alternative student and youth travel services to its customers. The
agreement is for five years.
(e)
Submission of the Parties
Arguments
in support of issuing a certificate
11.
TCDSU submits that the exclusive arrangement between the parties does not
prevent, restrict or distort competition in the supply of travel services
within the meaning of
section 4(1). Trinity students are free to use the
services of USIT travel or any other service provider. Furthermore, TCDSU
submits that although the arrangement is a vertical restraint affecting
inter-brand competition for discounted travel services within the campus, its
net effect is to introduce competition into the market by offering Trinity
students a choice between TCDSU on campus or USIT off campus.
Arguments
in support of issuing a Licence
12.
Arguments made by TCDSU here are not relevant as in the view of the Authority
the arrangement qualifies for a certificate.
(f)
Submission by Third Parties
13.
In a letter to the Authority dated the 13 January 1998, USIT indicated that
they wished to be given an opportunity to make a submission prior to any
decision being made by the Authority. USIT made such a submission to the
Authority on 3 December 1998 following the publication by the Authority of a
notice of its intention to issue a certificate to the notified agreement. USIT
stated in its submission that it "had no objection in principle to the
agreement by TCDSU not to sell products which compete directly with those of
(STA Travel). It is of the opinion, however, that there is an understanding
between the parties to the agreement which consists of an undertaking by TCDSU
to prevent the sale or promotion of products to Trinity students which compete
with those offered by (STA Travel) on the TCD campus." USIT urged the
Authority to only grant a certificate to the notified arrangement provided it
receive an undertaking that USIT not be denied access to sell its own products
on the TCD campus.
(g)
Subsequent Developments
14.
The Authority addressed the concerns raised by USIT with TCDSU by letter dated
13 January 1999. TCDSU replied to the Authority by letter dated 8 February
1999. TCDSU stated that "there is no understanding, implicit or explicit,
between TCDSU and STA Travel to attempt or hinder the sale or promotion of
competing products and/or services to students of Trinity College. . . . TCDSU
cannot and does not prohibit the advertisement of competing products and/or
services on campus, whether by posting, distribution or publication." The
letter enclosed a copy of a recent campus publication featuring advertisements
from SAYIT, USIT and other travel related companies. Furthermore, the letter
stated that representatives of TCDSU and USIT had met to discuss the issues
raised by the Authority and that TCDSU had "confirmed to USIT that we (TCDSU)
were not and could not prevent them from coming on campus. They could, if they
wished, team up with any club or society and have their material distributed as
part of the club or society's activities."
The
Assessment
(a)
Section 4(1)
15.
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991, as amended, states that “all
agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and
concerted practices, which have as their object or effect the prevention,
restriction or distortion of competition in goods or services in the State or
in any part of the State are prohibited and void.”
(b)
Applicability of Section 4(1) to the Undertakings and the Agreement.
16.
Section 3(1) of the
Competition Act defines an undertaking as “a person
being an individual, a body corporate or an unincorporated body of persons
engaged for gain in the production, supply or distribution of goods or the
provision of a service.”
17.
The parties to the notified agreement are TCDSU and STA Travel. STA Travel is
an undertaking engaged in the provision of travel services, including
discounted travel services to full-time third level student and youth markets.
TCDSU provides products and services to students and staff at Trinity College
Dublin. Accordingly, TCDSU and STA Travel are undertakings within the meaning
of
Section 3(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991. The notified agreement is
therefore an agreement between undertakings. The agreement has effect within
the State.
(c)
Conclusion
18.
The agreement notified contains standard restrictions and obligations on both
parties which are necessary for the maintenance of a proper relationship in
regard to the operation of the Agency and Exclusive Dealing Agreements. These
do not raise issues under the
Competition Act.
19.
The Partnership Agreement provides that TCDSU may not offer services which
directly compete with services offered by STA Travel. In effect, STA Travel
have a five year arrangement to be the only travel agent with a physical
presence exclusively dedicated to selling its products on the Trinity campus.
20.
The Agreement does not permit TCDSU to sell on campus any services which
directly compete with services offered by STA Travel. However, students and
staff at Trinity College are free to avail of travel services from other travel
agencies and service providers. Many such outlets are nearby. USIT is located
on Aston Quay. There are approximately 300 general purpose travel agencies
operating in the State (many of whom operate in Dublin’s city centre).
These agencies compete with travel agencies who specialise in student travel
and fares. Furthermore, by its letter of 8 February 1999, TCDSU have informed
the Authority that it will take no action to restrict USIT from having access
to Trinity campus and that they are currently free to do so. Therefore,
competitors may solicit business on campus eventhough they do not have a
physical premise there. Having regard to the availability of alternative
service providers, the Authority does not regard the exclusive right of STA
Travel to have its travel products distributed by TCDSU on the Trinity campus
as foreclosing the market.
21.
The effect of the arrangement notified here is to introduce competition in this
market. It increases the choice of discounted travel services available to
Trinity students and staff. Prior to the establishment of DUST and SAYIT
(based at UCC campus), USIT was the only dedicated provider of discounted
travel services to students. By this arrangement, STA Travel and TCDSU enter
this market.
(d)
The Decision
22.
In the Authority’s opinion, TCDSU and STA Travel are undertakings within
the meaning of
Section 3(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991, as amended, and the
notified agreement is an agreement between undertakings. In the
Authority’s opinion, the notified agreement between TCDSU and STA Travel
does not prevent, restrict or distort competition and thus does not contravene
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act.
The
Certificate
The
Competition Authority certifies that, in its opinion, on the basis of the facts
in its possession, the Agency and Exclusive Dealing Agreement between
Trinity
College Dublin Students’ Union and STA Travel Limited
notified
under
Section 7 of the
Competition Act on 24 October 1997 (notification no.
CA/21/97) does not contravene
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991, as
amended.
For
the Competition Authority,
William
Prasifka
Member
24
March 1999
© 1999 Irish Competition Authority