Commuter disruption: no to the one million fine for Trenitalia
In the Palazzo Spada case, the ruling by which the Regional Administrative Court had annulled the ‘fine’ imposed by the AGCM for unfair commercial practices has been overturned
Key points
The hardships enduredby commuters returning from the 2021 Christmas holidays on the Rome–Naples route were limited in duration and linked to the Covid emergency.These exceptional circumstances made it necessary to balance mobility needs with the requirements to contain the spread of the virus, forcing operators in the sector to continuously readjust transport services, inevitablyinfluenced by external factors beyond the control of independent business decisions.
Localised disruption linked to the Covid emergency
The Council of State’s ruling is based on these grounds, confirming the correctness of the verdict by which the Lazio Regional Administrative Court had ruled that the fine of 1 million euros imposed by the Competition Authority on Trenitalia ‘for inadequate management of commuter traffic on the Rome–Naples–Caserta route’.
The proceedings relate to the period January–February 2021. The objections raised by the Antitrust Authority, the judges at Palazzo Spada write, ‘do not reveal any flaws in the contested judgment (of the Lazio Regional Administrative Court), which correctly held that the conditions for imposing the penalty were not met’. The Council of State, in dismissing the appeal lodged by the AGCM, confirmed the annulment ordered at first instance of the penalty imposed by the Authority in August 2021 on Trenitalia, which was accused of an unfair commercial practice for ‘failing to provide, during January and February 2021, on the Rome–Naples route, a sufficient number of seats to meet the demand of commuters holding season tickets’.
The ruling of the Lazio Regional Administrative Court
At first instance, the Regional Administrative Court had upheld Trenitalia’s appeal, finding that ‘the contractual terms of the season ticket complied with the regulations laid down by the Transport Regulatory Authority – as the Council of State itself sets out in its judgment – that the ratio of available seats to the number of season tickets was in any case sufficient to meet foreseeable demand, and that the sole incident that had been conclusively established, which occurred on 8 January 2021, was not sufficient to constitute an unfair commercial practice”.
According to the administrative judges, ‘the Regional Administrative Court correctly held that the overall content of the contested measure does not reveal sufficient evidence to demonstrate conduct on the part of the professional characterised by that degree of offensiveness required to constitute an unfair commercial practice’. The account suggesting that some season ticket holders at the time had difficulty making or amending bookings “does not appear sufficient to demonstrate that the company had acted in a manner contrary to the principle of professional diligence. It must, in fact, be borne in mind that the events took place within a limited and entirely exceptional timeframe, characterised by the restrictions imposed by the public health emergency. In this scenario, the natural balancing act between mobility needs and the obligation to contain the spread of the virus required operators in the sector to continually adapt their transport services, which were inevitably influenced by external factors beyond the control of independent business decisions’.
