The Judicial Review of the Standard of Proof in Cartel Cases:Raising the Bar for the Croatian Competition Authority Case comment to the Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia No. U-III-2791/2016 of 1 February 2018 (Sokol Marić d.o.o.)

• Authors: Svetlicinii Alexandr
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The Security agencies case represents another example of the procedural diversity among Member States in applying national competition rules that mirror Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. In its infringement decision the Croatian NCA specified that the presence at the meeting with competitors and participation in the discussion concerning minimum prices was sufficient to impute to the parties participation in an anti-competitive agreement prohibited under the national equivalent of Article 101 TFEU. As the Croatian NCA investigated an agreement ‘by object’, it considered itself relieved of the burden to demonstrate the anti-competitive effects. The Constitutional Court has taken a different approach and held that the fact that the participants of the meeting have not publicly denounced the results of the meeting, cannot serve as evidence of an anti-competitive agreement. The court also found that the Croatian NCA did not manage to provide a reasonable explanation why the ‘hourly cost of service’ apparently discussed by competitors is the same as ‘hourly price of service’ that appears in the NCA’s decision. As a result, the Constitutional Court’s approach deviated from several substantive presumptions developed by the EU Commission and the EU courts when applying competition rules in relation to anti-competitive agreements. This places a heavier burden of proof on the Croatian NCA in cartel cases when compared to its own preceding practice or the enforcement practices of the EU Commission or other European NCAs.

FR

L’affaire des agences de sécurité représente un autre exemple de la diversité des procédures entre les États membres dans l’application de règles de concurrence nationales qui reflètent les articles 101 et 102 du TFUE. Dans sa décision d’infraction, l’autorité croate de la concurrence a précisé que la présence à la réunion avec les concurrents et la participation à la discussion sur les prix minimaux étaient suffisantes pour imputer aux parties la participation à un accord anticoncurrentiel interdit par l’équivalent national de l’article 101 du TFUE. L’autorité croate ayant enquêté sur un accord ‘par objet’ s’estime déchargée du fardeau de démontrer les effets anticoncurrentiels. La Cour constitutionnelle a adopté une approche différente et a jugé que le fait que les participants à la réunion n’ont pas dénoncé publiquement les résultats de la réunion ne peut servir de preuve d’un accord anticoncurrentiel. La Cour a également conclu que l’autorité croate n’avait pas réussi à expliquer de manière raisonnable pourquoi le ‘coût horaire du service’ apparemment discuté par les concurrents était identique au ‘prix horaire du service’ figurant dans la décision de l’autorité. En conséquence, l’approche de la Cour constitutionnelle s’écartait de plusieurs présomptions de fond développées par la Commission et les tribunaux de l’Union européenne lorsqu’elle appliquait les règles de concurrence relatives aux accords anticoncurrentiels. Cela alourdit la charge de la preuve incombant à l’autorité croate dans les cas des accords anticoncurrentiels par rapport à sa propre pratique antérieure ou aux pratiques répressives de la Commission de l’UE ou d’autres autorités européennes.

Keywords

EN

anti-competitive agreement; burden of proof; Croatia; price-fixing; standard of proof

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydział Nauk Ekonomicznych
• Journal: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
• Year: 2018
• Volume: 11(18)

Dates

published

2018-12-30

Contributors

author

Svetlicinii Alexandr

• University of Macau, Faculty of Law

References

• Akšamović, D. (2017). Judicial Review in EU and Croatian Competition Cases: The Procedure and Intensity of Judicial Review. In V. Tomljenović, N. Bodiroga-Vukobrat, V. Butorac Malnar, I. Kunda (eds.) EU Competition and State Aid Rules: Public and Private Enforcement (pp. 67–86). Berlin: Springer.
• Bailey, D. (2010). Presumptions in EU competition law. European Competition Law Review31(9), 362–369.
• Botta, M. and Svetlicinii, A. (2015). The right of fair trial in competition law proceedings: quo vadis the courts of the new EU Member States? In P. Nihoul and T. Skoczny (eds.) Procedural Fairness in Competition Proceedings (pp. 276–308). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Botta, M., Svetlicinii, A. and Bernatt, M. (2015). The assessment of the effect on trade by the national competition authorities of the “new” Member States: Another legal partition of the Internal Market? Common Market Law Review 52(5), 1247–1276.
• Butorac Malnar, V. and Pecotić Kaufman, J. (2016). The Interaction between EU Regulatory Implants and the Existing Croatian Legal Order in Competition. In M.Kovac and A-S. Vandenberghe (eds.) Economic Evidence in EU Competition Law (pp. 327–356) Cambridge: Intersentia.
• Deniz Ata, C. (2012). The Croatian Competition Authority imposes symbolic fines on 17 bakeries in Osijek for fixing prices agreement under the leadership of the local professional association (Osijek-Baranja Bakeries). e-Competitions Bulletin September 2012, Art. N° 58487.
• Pecotić Kaufman, J. (2012). The Croatian High Administrative Court confirms the decision of Competition Agency on illegal price fixing agreement in the residential management services market (Stano-uprava). e-Competitions Bulletin December 2012, Art. N° 57715.
• Pecotić Kaufman, J. (2011). The Croatian Constitutional Court upholds the judgment of the Administrative Court confirming its previous position on the application of EU competition rules (Tisak). e-Competitions Bulletin June 2011, Art. N° 36693.
• Pecotić Kaufman, J. (2010). The Croatian Competition Agency finds price fixing agreement between publishers of news and political weekly magazines null and void (EPH/NCL Media Grupa). e-Competitions Bulletin December 2010, Art. N° 34787.
• Pecotić Kaufman, J. (2009). Fighting Against Cartels in Croatia: More than a Decade of Enforcement Practice. Competition Policy International, https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/fight-against-cartels-in-croatia-more-than-a-decade-of-enforcement-practice/
• Pecotić Kaufman, J. and Petrović, S. (2017). The Enforcement of EU Competition Law by National Courts. In V. Tomljenović , N. Bodiroga-Vukobrat, V. Butorac Malnar, I.Kunda (eds.) EU Competition and State Aid Rules: Public and Private Enforcement (pp. 49–66) Berlin: Springer.
• Svetlicinii, A. (2017). Enforcement of the EU Competition Rules in Lithuania: Application of the ‘Effect on Trade’ Concept in the Enforcement Practice of the National Competition Authority and Courts. In V. Tomljenović, N. Bodiroga-Vukobrat, V.Butorac Malnar, I.Kunda (eds.) EU Competition and State Aid Rules: Public and Private Enforcement (pp. 87–110) Berlin: Springer.
• Svetlicinii, A. (2014). Enforcement of the EU Competition Rules in Romania: Application of the ‘Effect on Trade’ Concept in the Enforcement Practice of the Romanian Competition Council. Romanian Competition Journal 1–2, 11–23, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2560680
• Svetlicinii, A. (2012a). The Croatian Competition Authority imposes nominal fines on the participants of a price-fixing agreement on the bread market (Craftsmen Association of Osijek). e-Competitions Bulletin July 2012, Art. N° 49152.
• Svetlicinii, A. (2012b). The Croatian High Administrative Court upholds the decision of the NCA concerning anti-competitive practices in the market for office supplies (Association of office supplies retailers). e-Competitions Bulletin December 2012, Art.N° 54816.
• Svetlicinii, A. (2011a). The Croatian Competition Authority finds anti-competitive practices in the market for office supplies (Association of office supplies retailers). e-Competitions Bulletin July 2011, Art. N° 39267.
• Svetlicinii, A. (2011b). The Croatian Administrative Court upholds the infringement NCA’s decision establishing the existence of concerted practices among newspaper publishers that led to uniform price increases (Slobodna Dalmacija, Europapress holding, RTD, Glas Slavonije...). e-Competitions Bulletin December 2011, Art. N° 49030.
• Svetlicinii, A. (2011c). Parental Liability for the Antitrust Infringements of Subsidiaries: A Rebuttable Presumption or Probatio Diabolica? European Law Reporter 10, 288–292, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1983464
• Svetlicinii, A. (2010a). The Croatian Government adopts the fining guidelines under the new law on protection of competition. e-Competitions Bulletin November 2010, Art.N° 33580.
• Svetlicinii, A. (2010b). The Croatian Competition Authority establishes existence of concerted practices among newspaper publishers that led to a uniform price increase (Slobodna Dalmacija, Europapress holding, RTD, Glas Slavonije, Glas Istre, Novi list, Večernji list, Vjesnik-naklada). e-Competitions Bulletin March 2010, Art. N° 31738.
• Svetlicinii, A. (2010c). Epilogue of the Plasterboard Litigation: How Much Legal Certainty in the Commission’s Treatment of Repeated Infringements? European Law Reporter 10, 318–322, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1750922.
• Svetlicinii, A. (2009). The Croatian Competition Authority holds illegal minimum price fixing agreement among residential management service providers (Eki Inginjering). e-Competitions Bulletin May 2010, Art. N° 31414.
• Svetlicinii, A. (2008a). The Croatian Constitutional Court affirms the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Competition Act and its application in conformity with the EU standards (P.Z.A.). e-Competitions Bulletin December 2008, Art. N° 26123.
• Svetlicinii, A. (2008b). ECJ’s Ruling in Beef Industry Case: Competition Law Must Be Observed at All Times. European Law Reporter 12, 402–406, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1327865

Identifiers

DOI

10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2018.11.18.13