The Commission referred to the essential facilities doctrine also in two interim

decisions concerning access to the Welsh Holyhead Harbor in the Wales. In Sea
Container v. Stena Sealink, the complainant wanted to compete with the defendant in
the market for the transport of passengers and cars from Holyhead to Ireland. Stena
Sealink owned the port facilities of Holyhead.1 The Commission considered the port
of Holyhead an essential facility because it was the only British port serving this
market, with no feasible alternatives available.2 The trip from the nearest available
port, Liverpool, was twice the length of that from Dublin to Holyhead. The building
of a new port was not economically feasible or physically possible. Stena Sealink had
refused on several occasions to grant access to Sea Container to the port facilities on a
non-discriminatory basis.3 The Commission concluded that Stena Sealink had abused
its dominant position in the ferry market by refusing to give Sea Containers access to
the port of Holyhead on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. In this case,
however, the Commission did not have to order remedial measures because Stena
Sealink finally consented to providing sufficient offers of additional slot times
allowing plaintiffs to run a viable ferry service.

1
Id. at para 259.
2
Id. at para 265.
3
Case IV/34.174, B&I Line PLC v. Sealink Harbours Ltd. & Sealink Stena Ltd., [1992] 5 C.M.L.R. 255