Abuse of dominant position

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...

This case concerns a complaint to the Competition Council concerning an anticompetitive practice - abuse of dominant position. Thus, the complainant SC C.T.I. SRL sued the Competition Council, requesting the annulment of a defendant's decision and a Court order for the above mentioned to conduct an investigation into the violation of the Competition Law, considering that another undertaking, through its practices, abused the dominant position in violation of Art. 6 of the Competition Law and Art. 102 TFEU. High Court dismissed SC C.T.I. SRL as unfounded. According to Art. 6 of the Law no. 21/1996, in the form in force...

This decision of the High Court refers to the violation of the provisions of Art. 6 paragraph (1) letter c) of the Competition Law no. 21/1996, republished, with the subsequent amendments and completions, and of Art. 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by C.N.P.R. (Romanian post). Thus, the Competition Council considered that the Romanian Post had committed the following acts of discriminatory treatment: - the preferential treatment granted to SC I.G. SA. in relation to the competitors of that undertaking, between 14 July 2005 and 1 August 2009, on the relevant market for the standard...

The applicant SC L.S. LLC, in contradiction with the defendant, requested the annulment of Decision no. 55 of 15 October 2012 issued by the defendant and ordering him to commence an investigation following the complainant's grievance concerning the violation by SC D.E. SRL of Art. 6 paragraph (1) letter f) of Law no. 21/1996. The High Court rejected this action as unfounded. In order for an investigation to be commenced by the Competition Council for abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Art. 6 paragraph (1) letter f) of Law no. 21/1996, more cumulative conditions were required: -...

The present case concerns the action to supplement the Competition Council's Decision with regard to the violation of art. 6 paragraph 1 c) of Law no. 21/1996 and art. 102 TFUE by M.S. undertaking, which filed the complaint alleging a possible abuse of dominant position that triggered the investigation of the competition authority. The court rejected the undertaking's request. The undertaking requested the economic expert evidence, but the requested evidence is not conclusive, relevant and useful to the cause. Establishing the market share held by SC I.P. SA prior to 2005 and beyond 2011 is not relevant to the object...