The CNMC’s Competition Chamber has ruled that as of March 2026, there is no abuse of a dominant position by Boluda in the tugboat business at the Port of Las Palmas. This is not only a legal victory for Boluda; it is a validation of the status quo in one of the most critical logistics nodes in the Central Atlantic. A critical aspect of the analysis was the study of ‘exploitative abuses’. The resolution mentions that while some companies reported ‘changes in pricing’ following the departure of Odiel, these were due to isolated errors that were ‘subsequently reimbursed’. The regulator emphasizes that there is no evidence of a ‘breach of regulated maxima’, which secures Boluda’s operations under a veil of pricing legality that clients, for now, do not question.
24 entities responded in a staggered manner between July and September 2025. The CNMC’s Competition Directorate (DC), in its investigation into the possible existence of an abuse of dominance at the Port of Las Palmas, deployed a transparency operation on July 7, 2025, requesting information that was thoroughly addressed by a total of 24 shipping agents: Agunsa Europa, S.A. (response on 14/07/2025), Andrés Perdomo, S.L. (15/07/2025), Gramelcan, S.L. (15/07/2025), Atlantika Marine Logistics, S.L. (17/07/2025), Albatros Inter Shipping, S.L.U. (17/07/2025), Norwegian Fred Olsen, S.A. (18/07/2025), Berge Marítima, S.L. (22/07/2025), Alfaship Shipping Agency, S.L. (22/07/2025), Edhart Shipping Services, S.L. (24/07/2025), Gibunco Ship Agency, S.L. (24/07/2025), Danish J.A. Arocha, S.L.U. (28/07/2025), W.E.C. Lines España, S.L.U. (28/07/2025), Wilhelmsen Ships Service Canarias, S.A.U. (31/07/2025), Canarias Shipping, S.L. (01/08/2025), M.H. Bland, S.L. (01/08/2025), Cosvas Atlantic, S.L. (01/08/2025), Ocean Ports & Shipping, S.L. (07/08/2025), Flick Canarias 2, S.L. (07/08/2025), Atlansea Consignatarios, S.L.U. (08/08/2025), Ibérica Marítima Islas Canarias, S.L. (08/08/2025), Delfin Lines Canarias, S.A. (14/08/2025), Next Maritime S.L.E. (27/08/2025), Serex Marítimos, S.L. (07/09/2025) and Incargo, S.L. (15/09/2025).
The case S/0001/26 leaves a clear lesson for the sector: the existence of a ‘de facto monopoly’ is not prosecutable per se if the dominant operator adheres to PPP metrics. By ‘not initiating a sanctions procedure’, the CNMC implicitly acknowledges that operational efficiency in complex ports like Las Palmas can sometimes take precedence over the plurality of actors, as long as the red line of ‘excessive pricing’ or the strangling of sector margins is not crossed.
Incidence
After years of litigation, the regulator concludes that there are no ‘indications of infringement of Law 15/2007 on Competition Defense’, closing the door on a case that threatened to redefine the rules of the game in the Gran Canaria docks. To delve into the administrative and market control aspect of the case, the Competition Directorate (DC) deployed an exhaustive monitoring network that peaked on July 7, 2025. On that date, and under the umbrella of confidential information, information requests were issued to the 39 shipping agents that make up Asocelpa and act as intermediaries for shipping companies at the Port of Las Palmas. The aim was to trace any ‘incident in the provision of’ Boluda’s towing services that could be harming end clients.
The core of the conflict resided in the complaint from Odiel Towage, which accused Boluda of executing an exclusion strategy through the use of sham litigation. However, the Chamber has determined that Boluda’s actions, while aggressive, cannot be classified as ‘manifestly unfounded’. According to the text, for there to be an abuse of dominant position by this route, a preconceived plan to ‘eliminate competition’ must be demonstrated, a burden of proof that, in this instance, the Competition Directorate did not consider met.
The file reveals a market structure where PPP acts as a natural price regulator. The CNMC conducted a thorough check with ’24 shipping agents’, and the result was unanimous: no ‘systematic pattern of conduct’ was detected that consisted of demanding ‘abusive conditions’ or fees that exceeded ‘regulated maxima’. The crux of the matter is that Boluda, far from raising the service costs after the departure of its competitor, has maintained a policy of substantial ‘commercial discounts’ to retain clientele.
