The Commission for Protection of Competition has, ex officio, initiated proceedings against the company VILLAGER, trgovina na debelo, d.o.o, Ljubljana, Republic of Slovenia, to investigate a concentration that was executed without approval in accordance with the Law on Protection of Competition. It is reasonably presumed that this concentration arose from VILLAGER, d.o.o. acquiring control over SEMENARNA Ljubljana, a production and trading company, d.o.o., located in Ljubljana, Republic of Slovenia.

The Commission will evaluate the criteria prescribed by law (Article 19 of the Law on Protection of Competition) during the investigative proceedings to determine the permissibility of the concentration. In particular, it will consider the fact that this concentration was executed without notification, which constituted an obligation for the market participants. The law provides that concentrations among market participants are permissible, except where they would significantly restrict, distort, prevent competition in the market of the Republic of Serbia. This is particularly relevant if that restriction, distortion or prevention is the result of creating or strengthening of a dominant position.

The Commission will ascertain the essential facts, evidence, and other elements that will serve as the basis for its decision regarding the potential imposition of competition protection measures, specifically measures of deconcentration.

Through the conclusion initiating the proceedings, all individuals possessing data, documents, or other relevant information that may be pertinent to establishing the factual circumstances in the aforementioned proceedings are kindly invited to submit such information to the Commission for Protection of Competition, located at 25 Savska Street, Belgrade.

The Commission for Protection of Competition has, ex officio, initiated proceedings against the company DRUŠTVO ZA PROIZVODNjU PROMET I USLUGE AGROMARKET DOO KRAGUJEVAC, based in Kragujevac, to investigate a concentration that was carried out without the necessary approval in accordance with the Law on Protection of Competition. It is reasonably presumed that this concentration resulted from AGROMARKET DOO acquiring control over AM Hotel, a specialized real estate company located in Ljubljana, Republic of Slovenia.

The Commission will assess the criteria established by law (Article 19 of the Law on Protection of Competition) during the investigative proceedings to determine the legality of the concentration. In particular, it will take into account that this concentration was executed without notification, which constituted an obligation for the market participants. The law stipulates that concentrations among market participants are permitted, unless they significantly restrict, distort, or prevent competition in the market of the Republic of Serbia, particularly if such restriction, distortion, or prevention is the result of creating or strengthening of a dominant position.

The Commission will ascertain the critical facts, evidence, and other elements that will serve as the basis for its decision regarding the possible implementation of competition protection measures, specifically measures aimed at deconcentration.

Through the conclusion that initiates the proceedings, all individuals in possession of data, documents, or other relevant information that may aid in establishing the accurate factual situation in this case are hereby invited to promptly submit such information to the Commission for Protection of Competition at the address: 25/IV Savska Street, Belgrade.

End of February and throughout March, the Commission for the Protection of Competition, based on publicly available information, became informed of the intention of all three mobile operators to raise the prices of mobile telephony services. In relation to this issue, the Commission has received several initiatives requesting an investigation into the potential existence of a competition infringement. Acting upon these initiatives, the Commission gathered and analyzed the regulatory framework, publicly available data, and requested statements from all three mobile telephony operators in the Republic of Serbia.

Upon analyzing the regulatory framework, the Commission established that, pursuant to Article 87 of the Consumer Protection Law and Article 131 of the Electronic Communications Law, there is an obligation to notify, in advance, mobile telephony service users, among others, of any price changes. Based on publicly available information, it was confirmed that all three mobile operators had announced price increases for their services in advance, including public notification methods, 30 days prior to the price changes. As per the statements submitted by the operators in response to the Commission’s request, prior to announcing the price increases, certain operators consulted with the National Consumer Organization of Serbia or informed the Regulatory Authority for Electronic Communications and Postal Services in advance, through official correspondence, of the planned price increases. The Commission notes that it did not evaluate whether the notification to mobile telephony service users was in accordance with the aforementioned regulations, nor whether such a method of notification was adequate; rather, the notifications were assessed solely from the perspective of enhancing transparency in the market.

In the theory of competition protection, it is well recognized that markets characterized by classic oligopolistic market structures, such as the mobile telephony market in the Republic of Serbia, are particularly conducive to the alignment of behavior among competitors. In this regard, the Commission specifically analyzed data regarding the timing of the price increase announcements and the amount of the increases, particularly considering media reports related to similarities concerning these two factors, as well as the behavior of mobile operators during previous price increases for the same service.

Concerning the timing of the price change announcements, as previously stated, all three operators complied with regulatory requirements by notifying customers of the price changes for mobile telephony services 30 days in advance. Based on the data provided by all three mobile telephony operators at the Commission’s request (including the sequence of price increase announcements, documentation published in this context, etc.), there were no reasonable grounds to assume the existence of a prior agreement regarding the price increases.

Regarding the amount of the price increases, it was also determined that there are no reasonable grounds to assume the existence of a prior agreement concerning this pricing element. Specifically, an analysis of the data submitted at the Commission’s request regarding price increases among all three operators—both for individual packages that are comparable and for the average values of the increases—revealed that the price increases are not equivalent, either in nominal terms or as a percentage, across the three mobile telephony operators under consideration.

Additionally, the Commission analyzed previous behaviors to ascertain whether there was any discernible pattern in the actions of mobile operators during earlier price increases for the same service. However, based on the available data, no such pattern was identified.

In the light of the factors previously outlined, as well as the fact that the operators publicly announced and published their price increases 30 days prior to the implementation of the new prices to ensure compliance with the Consumer Protection Law and the Electronic Communications Law, and noting that such notification methods were not observed during prior price increases for mobile telephony services, coupled with the absence of any behavior suggestive of prior collusion, it has been determined that, based on the collected evidence, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the existence of direct or indirect secret agreements.

Thus, in highly concentrated markets, a price change that is not associated with any prior agreement, and which is neither simultaneous nor equal in nominal or percentage terms, and has been communicated in advance to consumer organizations, the regulatory authority, and publicly disclosed in accordance with relevant regulations, is inadequate for the Commission to reliably infer behavior that would suggest a violation of competition law. This falls short of the legal standard required for the ex officio initiation of proceedings—specifically, the existence of reasonable grounds under Article 35 of the Law indicating that a competition infringement has occurred.

The Commission for Protection of Competition has prepared proposals for four regulations, which it intends to submit to the Government of the Republic of Serbia for adoption, pursuant to the authorities conferred by the Law on Protection of Competition. The proposed legislative acts include the following:

1. Regulation on categories of vertical agreements exempted from the prohibition of restrictive agreements;
2. Regulation on categories of technology transfer agreements exempted from the prohibition of restrictive agreements;
3. Regulation on categories of vertical agreements on repair and maintenance of motor vehicles and agreements on the sale of spare parts in the motor vehicle sector exempted from the prohibition of restrictive agreements; and
4. Regulation on categories of agreements in the railway and road transport sector exempted from the prohibition of restrictive agreements.

The texts of the proposed regulations have been published on the portal https://ekonsultacije.gov.rs/. The Commission invites all market participants, business associations, law firms, experts, and other interested parties to submit their comments, proposals, and suggestions by July 15, 2024, via the eKonsultacije portal.

The Commission for Protection of Competition extends its heartfelt congratulations to the Dean and the team of the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law for their remarkable achievement in securing third place at the prestigious Herbert Smith Freehills Competition Law Moot, an international competition in EU competition law held recently in London.

The competition was held for the tenth consecutive year at the King’s College London Faculty of Law – The Dickson Poon School of Law. In the written phase of the competition, 49 teams from distinguished universities across the globe participated, whereby this year marked the first occasion on which the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law had a representative in this esteemed event.

As a result of their success in the written phase of the competition and their qualification as one of the top 12 teams, the team from the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law, under the mentorship of Assistant Professor Dr. Nikola Ilić and Maja Dobrić from the Commission for Protection of Competition, participated in the oral rounds. Following the first day of the competition, the team was ranked first in their group, achieving a victory over the University of Amsterdam, last year’s runner-up. On the second day of the competition, the team concluded the semifinals with one point fewer than the University of Hong Kong, ultimately securing third place in the overall standings, while the University of Hong Kong was proclaimed the winner of the competition.

The Commission for Protection of Competition of the Republic of Serbia took part in the 23rd Annual Conference of the International Competition Network (ICN), under the auspices of the ICN Secretariat. The conference was held in Sauipe, Brazil, and hosted by Brazil’s competition authority, the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE).
During the conference, Ms. Nina Vasić, LL.M., Senior Advisor in the Department for Legal Affairs and Domestic and International Cooperation at the Commission, participated as a speaker in the panel of the ICN Agency Effectiveness Working Group (ICN AEWG). The panel addressed the topic of effective training and capacity development for competition authorities.

This year’s conference addressed some of the most relevant topics in competition protection, such as combating cartels in the face of socio-economic challenges and digitalization, and the interplay between global markets and local needs in agriculture and food supply. It also featured discussions on the activities of ICN working groups, covering key issues like the abuse of dominant market positions, anti-cartel enforcement, enhancing the effectiveness of competition authorities, and promoting competition advocacy to the public.

The conference brought together approximately 400 participants from 80 countries, including representatives from competition authorities, international organizations, university professors, lawyers, consultants specializing in competition law, and other experts in the field.

The Commission, based on publicly available data, has been notified on the intent of all three mobile operators to increase the prices of their services. However, based on this fact alone it cannot be concluded it is a behavior that is potentially contrary to the Law on Protection of Competition.

As in all other cases, in this specific case, in order for the Commission to determine it is a prohibited behavior, legal procedure must be implemented beforehand to determine the existence of antitrust infringements. The purpose of procedure implementation is to collect facts that could prove the violation of the Law on Protection of Competition.

However, considering there is a formal, legally prescribed standard for initiation of procedure in front of the Commission, which is the well-founded presumption antitrust infringement has occurred, it is necessary to determine the merits of statements and review the facts beforehand. In case it is subsequently concluded there is a reasonable doubt that detected behavior is the result of illegal action, the Commission shall initiate the procedure of reviewing antitrust infringement.

Since, in line with the Law on Protection of Competition, the Commission has different mechanisms available to collect the necessary facts, the Commission shall not announce its possible intention to act in specific cases.

The Commission for the Protection of Competition and the National Competition Commission of Paraguay (CONACOM – Comisión Nacional de la Competencia) held a joint online session where representatives of the Commission presented the working method related to the independent detection of cartels without relying on the leniency program,notifications or cooperation with other authorities.

Officials and representatives of the Paraguayan authorities were explained the cartel detection method developed by the Commission and were familiarized with its practice regarding the detection and proof of concerted practices as a type of restrictive agreement.

The collaboration took place during the 22nd annual conference “Global Competition Forum” Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) held in Paris, where CONACOM officials expressed interest in the method presented by the Commission for the Protection of Competition.

A member of the Council of the National Competition Commission of Paraguay, Eduardo Barros, expressed his gratitude to the Commission for the presentation held to CONACOM employees.

Commission for Protection of Competition determined that companies KTG Solucije and Eco Sense Subotica with seat in Subotica agreed on the terms of participating in several public procurements procedures that were related to the procurement of cleaning products, thus concluding a restrictive agreement.

The Commission, through the Public Procurement Office, learned that KTG Solucije, as the bidder in certain public procurement procedures withdrew from the bids, thereby the contracting parties concluded the agreements with second-ranked bidder, Eco Sense, but, with higher prices compared to the ones offered by KTG Solucije. The subject of disputable public disputes were materials and products for cleaning buildings.

In addition to information on withdrawal from bids, the Commission, through the analysis of IP addresses (Internet Protocol Address) from which KTG Solucije d.o.o. and Eco Sense d.o.o. accessed the Public Procurement Portal in the said public procurement procedures, whether to download tender documents or submit bids, concluded that both companies almost always accessed from identical IP addresses. Results of IP address analysis point to the fact that both companies accessed the Public Procurement Portal almost always from devices that were connected on the same internet network, possibly from the same device.

Protection competition measures were imposed to the participants in a restrictive agreement, which was reduced for KTG Solucije due to the fact it used the “leniency program”, in line with Article 69 of the Law. The significance of this case is that this is the first case in which the Commission determined fulfilment of conditions to reduce the obligation of monetary amount payment related to competition protection measure based on the notification of the participant in restrictive agreement submitted during the procedure, that is, after it has been initiated.

The Commission for Protection of Competition’s Guidelines for Drafting Competition Compliance Programs, with the Template Competition Compliance Program accompanying the Guidelines and two Competition Checklists for assessing exposure of undertakings to risks of competition infringements, have been nominated this year for the Antitrust Writing Awards, organized by Concurrences and George Washington University. The aim of the Antitrust Writing Awards is to promote competition scholarship and contribute to competition advocacy in the legal and economic fields.

The publication in English is nominated in the section of the best Soft Laws & Studies of competition authorities in the subcategory “Europe”. The Commission is in the same category with the European Commission and competition authorities of the UK, France, Austria, Hungary, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Lithuania and Turkey.

The “Best Soft Laws & Studies” selection aims to contribute to developing antitrust culture and awareness. It seeks to support international antitrust advocacy by drawing attention to the most meaningful non-enforcement documents published by competition agencies such as guidelines, market studies, etc. It aims at singling out some of the most interesting administration practices that could be usefully applied more generally.

As in previous years, the nominations are evaluated by a jury composed of leading antitrust enforcers, academics, and counsel and at the same time there is an audience vote.