According to a High Court ruling delivered by Mr Justice Max Barrett, Dublin Airport operator daa acted in clear breach of EU and Irish competition law when it attempted to prevent off-airport car hire firm ER Travel Limited from using airport facilities to pick up and drop off customers. The court found that daa abused its dominant position and engaged in concerted practices with on-airport concessionaires to protect its rental revenue streams, declaring several airport bye-laws ultra vires.
High Court Rules DAA Breached Competition Law Over Airport Access
ER Travel Limited, which has operated an off-airport car rental service since 2015, claimed daa abused its dominant position to protect established concessionaires. The company operates similar models at Cork Airport, the UK, and the US.
Lawyers for ER argued that daa’s actions were motivated by a desire to safeguard revenue streams generated by on-airport car hire concessionaires. Daa maintained that businesses wanting to operate car hire services at Dublin Airport must participate in and succeed through a formal tender process.
Evidence of Concerted Action and Unlawful Bye-Laws
Mr Justice Max Barrett found that the conduct of daa and incumbent car hire firms was directed toward preventing ER from utilizing airport facilities, constituting a clear breach of competition law by restricting short-term car rental options. The judge noted that e-mail communications possessed “all the classic hallmarks typically observed when incumbent operators solicit coordinated protections from daa against a disruptive market entrant,” according to case details. Complaints from the Car Rental Council of Ireland (CRCI) and firms like Europcar urged daa to take “immediate action” against ER because low-cost competition would impact airport revenue.
The court heard that daa issued a cease-and-desist letter to ER in March 2016 and that airport police sporadically enforced restrictions. While several prosecutions initiated by daa against ER for alleged bye-law breaches were dismissed or struck out, Mr Justice Barrett ruled that daa exercised its bye-laws in an unlawful manner. He declared the bye-laws ultra vires and disproportionate under the State Airports Act 2004, though he dismissed ER’s claims of procedural unfairness regarding the collapsed prosecutions.
Did you know? ER Travel Limited operates an off-airport business model across multiple jurisdictions, including Cork Airport, the UK, and the US, providing low-cost alternatives that bypass traditional airport concession fees.
Industry Impact and Legal Precedents
The judgment establishes that a dominant market position does not grant an airport operator the unilateral right to foreclose competition based on a preference for one business model over another. Mr Justice Barrett stated that daa’s argument regarding the need to generate revenue to maintain passenger charges mandated by the Commission for Aviation Regulation was “untenable.” He emphasized that statutory powers must be interpreted to conform with competition law and constitutionally protected rights, including the freedom to conduct a business.
A daa spokesperson stated that the operator is reviewing the decision and cannot comment further while the legal process remains ongoing. Although the court declared sections of the Competition Act breached and specific bye-laws invalid, no injunction was issued because the judge noted that “daa cannot elect to act unlawfully.”
Frequently Asked Questions
Who brought the legal action against daa?
ER Travel Limited, an off-airport, low-cost car hire company operating at Dublin Airport since 2015, took the High Court case against daa.
What did the High Court decide?
Mr Justice Max Barrett ruled that daa breached EU and Irish competition law by abusing its dominant position and engaging in concerted practices with on-airport car rental firms to block ER from using airport drop-off and pick-up facilities.
Did the court issue an injunction against daa?
No injunction was deemed necessary by the judge, who stated that “daa cannot elect to act unlawfully” following the declarations that relevant bye-laws were ultra vires.
What are your thoughts on the High Court’s ruling regarding airport access and competition? Join the discussion by leaving a comment below, and subscribe to our newsletter for regular updates on Irish transport and legal developments.
Worth a look