Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

It is great to be here, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to congratulate you on your position and wish you every success. Not so long ago you were asking me the questions and on this occasion you are refereeing.

I am aware of this Supreme Court decision which arises from the first ever court decision in an abuse of dominance case brought by the Competition Authority.

Following a full hearing of the issues, the High Court found in favour of the Competition Authority in October 2004. The High Court's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court by the Irish League of Credit Unions, ILCU. In May 2007 the Supreme Court overturned the High Court's judgment that the ILCU had abused its dominant position in the market for savings protection for members' deposits in credit unions. This case was the first time the Supreme Court was called upon to adjudicate on a substantive issue in Irish competition law and as such sets an important precedence for competition law.

Elements of the question referring to a contingency provision for the costs of the court case and the impact of the costs on the authority's work programme relate to operational matters for the Competition Authority. The authority is the independent statutory body responsible for the enforcement of competition law in the State. Its mandate and functions are set out in the Competition Act 2002, as amended. In particular section 29(3) of that Act provides that the authority shall be independent in the performance of its functions.

However, I understand that as of yet, no award as to costs has been made in this case. In the event of an award of costs being made against the Competition Authority, I understand it intends to absorb as much of those costs as possible from within its own budget without impacting on its work programme. Any request by the authority for additional funding will be considered at that time in the context of the Department's extant priorities.

See this speech in context