Zamakona and Hidramar will not appeal, in theory. The question at Puertos del Estado last Friday, after the report became known that cleared the way for Transcoma to transfer its concession at Reina Sofía Breakwater to the island subsidiary of the Laskaridis group, was: “Who signed off on that?” “That” is a rigged proceeding seeking to resolve, with two badly calculated sums, what the Ports Act and European competition law explicitly prohibit. Gustavo Santana, the representative of the president of Puertos del Estado, Álvaro Rodríguez Dapena, voted in favor, according to sources on the board of the Las Palmas Port Authority.
In Madrid, there was some concern about the precedent that Las Palmas’ decision could set for other ports, based on a 16-page “brick” of high administrative literature. “Let’s see whether the shock wave does not reach the mainland,” an official consulted by Canarymaritime last Friday afternoon said. In business circles, the discontent was not limited to Hidramar or Zamakona. “With that theory, the Cepsa station next to the Port Authority entrance should close because it is opposite Petrocan,” said an island businessman, who asked not to be named. But, generally speaking, the response was to mock the decision.
The city is called Albuquerque
Classical physics teaches that two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time. European competition law suggests something similar: a single company should not take over the entire pier so that everyone else can make a living. The Las Palmas Port Authority has just reinvented science and law in a report drafted with the conceptual precision of someone trying to fit an elephant into a Seat 600.
A buddy they call Heisenberg
It all began when a maneuver to transfer 8,000 square meters of Transcoma’s concession to Laskaridis was removed from the agenda of the July Board of Directors meeting. Far from dispelling doubts about the overwhelming accumulation of space at Reina Sofía Pier, the Las Palmas port management, under the executive control of Francisco Trujillo, decided to draft a document destined to go down in the history of financial fantasy literature.
Violating the territory
The lengthy document argues that the transfer of concession 15-C-1003 (Transcoma) “does not substantially alter the competitive structure,” but intentionally omits adding Transcoma’s revenue and volume to Laskaridis’ resulting market share. If Laskaridis’ subsidiary holds about 40% of the relevant market at Reina Sofía and absorbs the Hamilton facility, the combined share or joint territorial control increases considerably, reaching or exceeding the 50% threshold in certain segments.
The gringo was in charge of the beast
The report cites rulings by the TSJC involving Laskaridis to assert that “the mere size of an operator cannot, by itself, establish a dominant position.” The breached legal reality is that European case law establishes that when the allocation of port public-domain property—a scarce and irreproducible resource—physically limits the entry of new competitors, the concentration of adjoining concessions in favor of the incumbent operator creates a “market foreclosure” effect.
In a decision dated December 21, 1993, concerning a similar proceeding between Sea Containers and Stena Sealink, the European Commission stated: “The owner of an essential facility who uses its power in one market to protect or strengthen its position in another related market (…) thereby placing a competitive disadvantage, infringes Article 86.”
Clock, do not strike…
The most fascinating aspect of this piece of administrative craftsmanship is its contempt for elementary mathematics. The report begins by boasting of 68 operators qualified to work at the port. The unsuspecting reader imagines a crowded marketplace of competitors. Minutes later, when the actual tables for Reina Sofía Pier are examined, the desert becomes obvious: the ship-repair business is divided among three companies. Presenting a self-employed electrician who changes light bulbs on the quay as a suitable rival to a shipyard giant is the first great conceptual sleight of hand.
Black Tears, or sub-Saharan ones
The accounting surprises continue. In the section devoted to the financial breakdown, the combined revenue of Laskaridis’ concessions is listed at €15.5 million. Two pages later, without a single new contract having been recorded at the pier, that same figure miraculously jumps to €19.3 million to assign it a convenient 39.8% share. Four million euros appear out of thin air, probably propelled by the sea breeze from La Isleta itself.
If You Tell Me to Come
To argue that there is no risk of a monopoly, the formula is to say that 75% of Reina Sofía’s berthing frontage is not under concession. A marvel on paper. The question is how an operator is supposed to repair an oil platform or a deep-draft vessel from that “free” berth if it does not have a single square meter of adjacent land on which to place a crane, install a workshop or set down a nut. Claiming that this strip of water without access to land is a genuine alternative is equivalent to selling plots on the Moon on the grounds that the land is public and nobody charges rent.
Smuggling and Treason
The final flourish consists of leaving the buyer out of the picture. The report assesses the impact of the transfer without bothering to add the revenue or square meters of the concession being absorbed. It analyzes the purchase of Hamilton as if the plot were going to float in a neutral limbo, rather than becoming part of the territorial empire of its adjoining neighbor.
Nothing but shadows
All this conceptual pyrotechnics is aimed at circumventing Article 92 of the Ports Act, designed to prevent a single actor from dominating scarce resources. While the Court of Justice of the European Union repeatedly insists in its rulings that exceeding a 50% share creates an immediate presumption of a dominant position, and while essential-facilities doctrine prohibits blocking competitors’ access to public ports, Las Palmas has opted for creative interpretation.
Kiss Me a Lot
The result is a report that confuses license records with genuine competition, changes revenue figures from one page to the next and forgets to add the beneficiary’s data. It is a masterpiece of regulatory makeup that leaves free competition in tatters, but with the comfort of having upheld the local tradition: everything remains on the pier, perfectly arranged and, above all, in the same hands.
The article A laissez-faire attitude at Las Palmas port: the trick of mixing suppliers with concession holders on Transcoma’s plot was first published on canarymaritime.com.
