Jurisprudence

This case concerns the evidence that can be handled in disputes seeking annulment of the competition authority's decisions to apply sanctions for violation of competition rules. This case ended with cassation and sending the case back to retrial for the wrongful rejection of the evidence. There is no provision in the general procedural law or in the special laws applicable to the case that would prevent the administration of evidence of presenting the point of view of one or more competition personalities or specialists on the ground of failure by the party to submit any economic analysis in the investigation...

In the present case, it is a violation of the provisions of Art. 5 letter a) of the Competition Law no. 21/1996 and Art. 101 par. (1) letter (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) by indirectly fixing the selling prices or other trading conditions for the products of the supplier B. Germany. The High Court dismissed the applicant A.'s appeal, which sought the annulment of the Competition Council's decision. Participation in the conclusion of an anticompetitive agreement may be expressed or tacit and, as far as the applicant is concerned, it has accepted the...

This case concerns violation of the provisions of Art. 13 paragraph (1) and (2) of the Law no. 21/1996 by putting into effect an economic concentration operation achieved by acquiring the sole direct control over an undertaking and indirectly over the undertakings controlled by it, before the notification and before the operation is declared compatible with the normal competition environment by the Competition Council. Thus, the court dismissed the complainant's action, maintaining the decision of the Competition Council to sanction. According to the provisions of Art. 13 paragraph (6) of the Competition Law "it is prohibited to put into effect...

This case concerns a complaint for abuse of a monopoly position and the confusion between the operating contract and the railway infrastructure access contract under which the infrastructure manager / manager charges the infrastructure charge. According to the legal norms in force, respectively G.O. no. 60/2004 regarding the regulations related to the construction, maintenance, repair and operation of the railway, other than those administered by CN E. SA, with subsequent amendments, respectively the Order of the Minister of Transports, Constructions and Tourism no. 880/2005 approving the procedures for the application of GO provisions. no. 60/2004, Decision no. 2299/2004 for the...

As a result of a complaint, by the Order of the President of the Competition Council no. 397 of February 21, 2011, the investigation of the possible violation of Art. 6 paragraph (1) of the Competition Law no. 21/1996, republished, with the subsequent amendments and completions and Art. 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by SC C. SRL, was commenced. SC C. SRL is working in the wholesale trade of pharmaceuticals. The portfolio of the undertaking includes over 35 products, all of them original medicines, most of them high-tech products, targeting therapeutic areas with special...

Undertaking A was fined by the Competition Council for violating the provisions of Art. 6 of the Competition Law no. 21/1996, republished. The High Court decided to dismiss with reference to retrial for not reasoning the decision and non-observance of the first cassation decision. The number of cassations with reference to retrial is limited, under Art. 312 par. (61) C. Proc. Civil (1865) and Art. 20 par. (3) of the Administrative Litigations Law no. 554/2004, only if, after the first cassation, the court of first instance complies with the provisions of the court of appeal; the contrary interpretation would deprive...

In this case, the applicant S.C. "X TV Group" S.A. sued the defendant of the Competition Council by invoking before the court of appeal the exception of the inadmissibility of the action for failure to comply with the preliminary procedure provided by art.7 paragraph 3 of the Law no. 554/2004. The High Court rejected the plea of ​​inadmissibility. The administrative litigation action shall be addressed to the court only after the preliminary complaint has been formulated when informed, by any means, of the existence of the contested act but not later than 6 months from the date of its issue,...

This case concerns the turnover calculation method. The applicant, in contradiction with the defendant the Competition Council, requested, principally, the annulment of the Competition Council's Decision no. 39 of September 7, 2010 concerning the violation of Art. 5 paragraph (1) of the Competition Law no. 21/1996 and Art. 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, by the administrators of the mandatory private pension funds in Romania, finding that the deed is not of a competitive nature. The High Court dismissed the appeal as unfounded. By this judgment, the first instance confirmed the qualification given by the...

Undertaking A. signed contracts with its distributors, whereby they could not buy products from outside Romania, wherefore it was sanctioned by the Competition Council. The undertaking has appealed to the Competition Council, but the High Court dismissed the action. It is a violation of Article 5 of Law No 21/1996, clause 3.2.6, inserted in all 6 contracts signed by the appellant with its distributors, concerning the exclusive purchase of products from A., which did not pursue, as claimed by the supplier of products, to ensure the consumer protection to counterfeit products, but in fact has imposed an obligation on distributors...

The National Union of Judicial Executors in contradiction with the defendant the Competition Council required the annulment of the decision of the Plenum of the Competition Council no. 58 of 18 October 2012. By the Decision no. 58/2012, the Competition Council established violation of the provisions: -Art. 5 paragraph (1) letter a) of the Competition Law and Art. 101 paragraph (1) letter a) of the Treaty, from February 2007 to the present, and - Art. 5 paragraph (1) letter g) of the Competition Law and of Art. 101 paragraph (1) letter b) of the Treaty, between October 2010 and May...