Motivation
In 1998 Storm Weather Center responded to a tender concerning professional commercial operational offshore weather services in the Norwegian sector of the North- and Norwegian Seas.

Competitors included the Marine Forecasting Centre of DNMI, Oceanroutes, the UK Met Office and Storm Weather Center. Following a lengthy tender process, the tenderer announced in May 1998 the decision to renew its contract with DNMI, also noting that Storm Weather Center's tender was considered a very strong and serious runner-up.

Following this decision we received intelligence that DNMI reduced its original tender price more than three-fold (new price amounting to 25-30% of the original offer) in response to Storm Weather Center's competing offer. We voiced serious concern that a governmental body, in this case DNMI, could not be trusted to have abided by commercial principles. Suspicion of anti-competitive conduct and abuse by DNMI of its dominant position in the market place by during the tender process could therefore not be ruled out.

Our case brought forward to The Norwegian Competition Authority included the following allegations:

     1. DNMI deliberately engaged in price dumping concerning the offshore service tender in order to hinder losing an important offshore contract. We acknowledge the right for any commercial enterprise to dump prices in order to win contracts, as long as shareholders carry this risk. But it is unacceptable that a public body - in this case DNMI, funded by the taxpayer and not constrained by commercial risk, engages in anti-competitive behaviour in order to limit legitimate competition. We argued that DNMI could be suspected to have acted anti-competitive in this case. We also challenged the authorities to evaluate DNMI's commercial activities with respect to Norwegian Competition Law.

     2. We also suspected unlawful anti-competitive conduct by DNMI in the Norwegian media market, with the aim of keeping Storm Weather Center off the "playing field". A consequence of this particular market behaviour was in our view the "destruction" of a sustainable media market willing to pay acceptable fees for professional services.

     3. Despite DNMI's assurances that their commercial arm "Markedsavdelingen" did not receive subsidies ("subsidies" in the broad sense of the word, for instance access to large sets of data without having to abide by the ECOMET rules pertaining to a service provider), or that commercial accounts are separated from public accounts, we made clear that such assurances were neither verifiable due to lack of accounting transparency nor possible as long as the public body attained commercial interests. v The ruling
After more than two years of deliberations, the ruling was finally published on Friday June 8th 2002. The following is an unofficial (my own) translation of The Norwegian Competition Authorities brief press release:

"The Norwegian Competition Authority recommends separating The Norwegian Meteorological Institutes commercial activities into an independent company. In a letter to The Ministry of Labour and Government Administration (my note: responsible government ministry) the Competition Authority expresses possible anti-competitive ramifications resulting from The Norwegian Meteorological Institutes commercial activities. v In the interest of maintaining competitive weather- and climate services, potential hindrances should be eradicated in order for Storm Weather Center AS and other potential private enterprises to offer its services. The Norwegian Competition Authorities judgement is that the commercial activities of The Norwegian Meteorological Institute brings about or may easily create competitive hindrances, and that the most appropriate course of action to oust these obstructive activities is to separate the institute's commercial enterprise into an independent, autonomous company, e.g. a public limited company."

What next?
Our understanding of the authorities verdict is that it represents a complete "victory" for us on all fronts. Maybe the only cause for concern is the suggestion pertaining to the proposed public limited company solution. If this surfaces as a likely solution, they would potentially still have access to unlimited public resources because of the government majority ownership.

This ruling is a recommendation to the Norwegian Authorities, and need therefore not be acted upon. But we have received promising signals from different sources, including representatives of the responsible ministry that this ruling will ultimately lead to future reorganisation. Our job is to maintain the pressure so that this process preserves its momentum. International events evolving favourably in the EU will of course also fuel national momentum.

ECOMET
Storm Weather Center is subject to high costs as a result of the ECOMET-regime. One of our arguments in the case brought forward to Norwegian Competition Authorities was the inability to verify DNMI's ECOMET-fees, and that they were gaining unlawful access to more data compared to Storm Weather Center. It was not our intention with this particular case to consider, nor did the Norwegian Competition Authority consider the validity of the ECOMET agreement. ECOMET was briefly mentioned and explained, but they only made reference to the DG IV Comfort letter supporting the legality of ECOMET.