Medlab has lost its administrative law case (LAR case) against the Aruba Fair Trade Authority (AFTA) and the General Health Insurance (AZV). The Judge ruled in favor of AFTA, confirming that it cannot take action against AZV.
It is understood that Medlab is dissatisfied with AZV allowing hospital laboratories and specialists to conduct lab tests instead of Medlab. Medlab filed a complaint with AFTA against AZV, but AFTA rejected it. Medlab then initiated court proceedings, where the Judge upheld AFTA’s decision, ruling that action cannot be taken against AZV under competition law.
Noord Medical Center N.V. (Medlab) initiated proceedings against the executive body of the General Health Insurance scheme, UOAZV (AZV). The dispute stems from AZV entering into an agreement in 2024 specifying that insured patients undergo laboratory testing at the hospital laboratory. These tests pertain to secondary care (di dos linea) for specialists and hospitals requiring tests for their patients. Medlab, which also provides laboratory services, disagrees with this arrangement and seeks to offer its own lab services. Additionally, Medlab contends that AZV sets excessively low tariff rates for the primary lab services Medlab provides to AZV.
Medlab files a complaint against AZV
In response to the situation, Medlab lodged a formal complaint with the Aruba Fair Trade Authority (AFTA). Medlab alleged that AZV engages in unfair competition and requested AFTA to intervene under the National Ordinance on Competition (Mededingingsverordening – Mv).
AFTA rejects the complaint
Following an assessment, AFTA dismissed Medlab’s complaint against AZV. According to AFTA, AZV does not qualify as an “undertaking” (empresa) within the meaning of the Competition Ordinance (Mv), and therefore AFTA lacks jurisdiction to act against AZV’s operational practices.
Medlab takes the case to court
Medlab contested AFTA’s decision and filed an administrative law appeal (LAR case). Medlab argued that AZV behaves as an undertaking under the Mv law by entering into agreements with healthcare providers and establishing the tariffs it pays.
Court dismisses Medlab’s appeal
The Court of Justice of Aruba heard the case and recently issued its verdict, siding with AFTA’s position that AZV is not an undertaking within the meaning of the Mv law. In the ruling, the Judge highlighted that European Court of Justice case law regarding the concept of an “undertaking” was consulted and deemed relevant for interpreting the concept under Aruban competition law.
European Court of Justice rulings establish that bodies responsible for managing statutory health insurance schemes based on solidarity are not undertakings, but rather entities executing a public government function.
The Judge noted that AZV exhibits all the characteristics of a national solidarity-based system, as evidenced by how insurance contributions are calculated based on residents’ income. This entire structure is grounded in law, where legislation prohibits commercial competition in mandatory health insurance, with AZV operating within this framework.
In the Judge’s view, awarding contracts to laboratory providers and establishing reimbursement tariffs do not transform AZV into an undertaking. Because AZV is not an undertaking under the Mv law, AFTA cannot take action against it. The Court ruled that AFTA acted correctly in rejecting Medlab’s complaint.
This judicial decision is not final. Parties have the right to lodge an appeal against the ruling within six weeks.