In ex officio proceedings concerning an alleged infringement of competition law by Vaillant d.o.o., Belgrade, the Commission for Protection of Competition found that the company had concluded restrictive agreements having as their object the significant restriction, distortion and prevention of competition within the meaning of Article 10 of the Law on Protection of Competition. Accordingly, the Commission imposed a competition protection measure amounting to RSD 15,569,280.00.

On 19 January 2023, the Commission for Protection of Competition opened ex officio infringement proceedings against Vaillant d.o.o., Belgrade, a distributor of heating equipment under the “Vaillant” and “Protherm” brands, on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that the undertaking had imposed resale prices for those products in the Republic of Serbia, thereby engaging in resale price maintenance (RPM). The Commission also carried out a dawn raid at the undertaking’s business premises.

Prior to initiating the proceedings, the Commission compared the wholesale and retail prices from the price list of Vaillant with the retail prices displayed on the websites of certain authorized distributors and determined that they are identical, both among all of the observed retailers, and against the prices from the price list available on the website of Vaillant. Moreover, based on the available data, the company Vaillant is not present on the retail market of products of the “Vaillant” and “Protherm” brands, but only through its distributors.

The Commission found that, since 2017, Vaillant had operated a business model based on the wholesale distribution of Vaillant and Protherm branded products to its distributors under identical or substantially similar terms and conditions. The distributors were periodically supplied with identical price lists specifying wholesale and retail prices, which they were expected to implement and pass on to their downstream customers throughout the distribution network. In addition, they received a rebate policy prescribing the discount structure to be adhered to by the distributors and all other members of the distribution network. Under the rebate policy, discount rates differed depending on the product type, the brand in question, and the customer segment. The evidence showed that Vaillant actively enforced and monitored the consistent application of prices for Vaillant and Protherm products. Vaillant concluded separate agreements with retailers and installers in its distribution network for alleged market-development services. Pursuant to those agreements, it provided financial incentives once the recipients submitted invoices from which the resale prices of the products could be ascertained. Conversely, Vaillant refrained from paying incentives that traders had come to expect in cases where they deviated from its pricing policy, even where the agreed sales volumes had been met, thereby rendering the withholding of such incentives a punitive measure.

The core of this type of infringement is that a supplier of a product restricts its buyer (and/or other buyers within the distribution network, including retailers) from independently and freely setting resale prices in downstream sales. This substantially restricts competition between retailers of the same brand, removes the possibility of retail price competition, and thereby prevents price reductions at the retail level, to the detriment of consumers.

The Commission for the Protection of Competition has instituted proceedings against the market participants AP SIDRO d.o.o. Novi Beograd, WESTOM GLOBAL d.o.o. Belgrade, and CCC INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING d.o.o. Belgrade–Zvezdara, based on a well-founded presumption that, through collusive conduct in public procurement procedures carried out by the contracting authority Joint Stock Company Elektroprivreda Srbije (EPS), they have infringed competition within the meaning of Article 10 of the Law on the Protection of Competition.

Simultaneously with the initiation of the procedure, the authorized officials of the Commission for the Protection of Competition carried out a dawn raid at three locations and collected relevant documentation for establishing the facts in this procedure.

The Commission received an initiative to examine a possible infringement of competition, upon which it established a well-founded presumption that the companies concerned had coordinated their conduct both before and after the opening of bids in the public procurement procedures conducted by EPS.

According to the allegations set out in the initiative, one of the participants in the potential restrictive agreement submitted a bid whose value was slightly below the estimated value of the public procurement and which, in all respects, constituted an acceptable bid, while the other members of the potential restrictive agreement submitted bids with successively lower prices (a high-priced bid by SIDRO, a mid-priced bid by CCC, and a low-priced bid by WESTOM), which, however, contained arithmetic errors (the discrepancies in some cases amounting to only a few dinars). The contracting authority (EPS), pursuant to the Law on Public Procurement, is required to request that the bidder consent to the correction of any arithmetic error and, should the bidder refuse to accept such correction, to reject the bid. In the present proceedings, where no bids were submitted other than those of the participants in the potential restrictive agreement, all bidders whose submissions contained arithmetic errors failed to provide consent for the correction of such errors, thereby rendering their bids inadmissible. As a result, the contracting authority, pursuant to the Law on Public Procurement, was obliged to conclude the contract with the bidder that had submitted the highest bid, as it remained the sole acceptable bid. Where other bidders participate in the specific public procurement procedure, a bidder offering a price lower than that of a bidder not party to the restrictive agreement provides consent to the correction of any arithmetic errors, thereby rendering their bid the most advantageous. The companies SIDRO, WESTOM, and CCC offer identical goods, that is, goods from the same manufacturer, but at different prices.

Based on the foregoing, the Commission has a well-founded presumption that the aforementioned companies infringed competition by concluding a restrictive agreement within the meaning of Article 10 of the Law on the Protection of Competition.

All persons having data, documents or other relevant information that may be significant for determining the factual situation in this procedure, are hereby invited to submit them to the Commission for Protection of Competition,at 25 Bulevar kralja Aleksandra II Karađorđevića, Belgrade.

Siniša Milošević, Member of the Council of the Commission for the Protection of Competition, took part as a panelist on competition policy at the Regional Legal Business Forum 2025, the leading annual event for corporate lawyers in the region, held this year in Zlatibor.

The discussion on the competition protection panel addressed the position, mandate, and key challenges confronting competition authorities in the region. The organizers highlighted the topic, “The Role of Competition Authorities: Supervision or Regulation?” as particularly timely, reflecting ongoing public debates about the extent to which competition authorities can intervene in markets—such as setting margins or prices—and whether such actions fall within their mandate. The panel also examined whether these bodies primarily regulate or supervise markets, whether they perform a single or multiple functions, and the extent to which they can address specific market inefficiencies.

Despite ongoing efforts to advance competition law, competition authorities are frequently subject to public criticism for matters beyond their mandate, often accompanied by unrealistic or unfounded expectations and inaccurate information regarding their activities and procedural timelines. The panel thus offered an excellent opportunity to address such issues directly with institutional representatives and to promote a deeper understanding of the significance of competition protection.

The panel also featured the participation of: The panel featured Karolina Andonovska, Secretary General of the Competition Commission of the Republic of North Macedonia; Dr. Nebojša Jovović, Director of the Agency for the Protection of Competition of the Republic of Montenegro; and Vanja Malidžan, Member of the Competition Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The discussion was moderated by Zoran Šoljaga, Partner at the law firm Moravčević, Vojnović & Partners.

The three-day gathering, organized by the Association of Corporate Lawyers of Serbia in strategic partnership with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia, drew over 500 participants from the region. The attendees included 50 panellists, more than 400 corporate lawyers, heads of legal departments, attorneys, judges, notaries, as well as representatives from state institutions and the academic community.

Following an ex officio investigation into a potential infringement of competition law, initiated on April 4, 2024, against Metabo Centar Kragujevac and KAPRO INDUSTRIES LTD, Israel, the Commission determined that the aforementioned undertakings entered into a restrictive agreement with the objective of substantially restricting, distorting, and preventing competition, as set forth under Article 10. Consequently, the Commission has adopted appropriate measures to safeguard competition.

The proceedings were initiated upon receipt of information indicating that Metabo Centar Kragujevac, acting as the importer of mechanical and laser measuring instruments manufactured by Kapro, exerted pressure—through the manufacturer KAPRO INDUSTRIES LTD of Israel—on suppliers of Kapro-branded tools who serve other market participants in the Republic of Serbia, compelling them to discontinue their deliveries. This conduct effectively resulted in the elimination of competition within the wholesale market for these tools.

Based on the aforesaid, the Commission has reasonably concluded that Metabo Centar and Kapro Israel engaged in practices aimed at, or having the effect of, eliminating competition against Metabo Centar in the wholesale distribution of Kapro-branded tools within the Republic of Serbia. This conduct resulted in a significant reduction of market alternatives, compelling purchasers to pay inflated prices for these tools compared to what would have been possible had multiple distributors been available.

It was further determined that the agreements entered into by Metabo Centar Kragujevac with its customers contained clauses prohibiting the resale of Kapro-branded tools below their purchase price. Such restrictions may function as a mechanism to hinder imports, thereby preserving the pricing of Kapro tools at a controlled level. Furthermore, this practice constitutes an independent infringement of competition law through the imposition of minimum resale prices.

Representatives of the Commission for the Protection of Competition participated in a consultation held in Belgrade, organized by the Association of Corporate Lawyers in cooperation with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia (PKS).

The topic was “Business Compliance with Competition Protection Regulations,” during which members of the association discussed the legal framework, the objectives of competition protection rules, the institutional setup, and the jurisdiction of the Commission for the Protection of Competition. The discussion also covered specific competition-related risks that should be identified and avoided in the compliance process, the importance of ensuring compliance, and the guidelines for developing compliance programs with competition protection regulations — introduced by the Commission at the end of 2021.

This consultation is part of the Commission’s ongoing efforts to raise awareness among market participants about the need for and methods of achieving compliance with competition protection regulations.