Competition

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...

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,...

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...

The case concerns violation of art. 5 paragraph (1) of the Law no. 21/1996, republished and art. 101 paragraph (1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by SC B. SA and SC A. SRL by concluding an agreement aimed at restricting competition by isolating the Romanian market and preventing trade of SC B. SA products on other markets, including the common market. According to art. 315 paragraph (1) Civ. Proc. Code, it is the binding nature of the decision of cassation, which established that the competition authority has legally and thoroughly established the existence of the...

In the present case, the complainant requested suspension of the enforcement of an administrative act, suspension that could be ordered if the conditions laid down in Art. 14 paragraph (1) of the Law no. 554/2004 of the contentious-administrative, namely the existence of the well justified case and the proof of the imminent damage. If the suspension is required to be ordered according to Art. 14 of the Law no. 554/2004, it is necessary to prove, in addition to these conditions, that the preliminary complaint has been filed, under Art. 7 of the Law on contentious-administrative, and if the request for...

The High Court accepted both undertaking A’s and the Competition Council’s appeals against the decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, dismissed the contested sentence and referred the case back to the Bucharest Court of Appeal. This is because, as provided by Art. 304 pt. 7 Civ. proc. Code, the situation in which "the judgment does not contain the reasons on which it is based or when it contains contradictory or foreign reasons of the nature of the case" represents a ground of appeal. A judgment must include in its reasoning the arguments which have, in fact and in law,...

This case concerns violation of the provisions 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 in the context of a public procurement procedure. More specifically, the complainant, SC A. SRL, sued a decision of the Competition Council, which, following an investigation, found that the undertaking had participated in an anticompetitive agreement, consisting of participation in rigged bidding in a public procurement procedure organized by CNADNR. The High Court dismissed the sanctioned undertaking’s appeal.   In fulfilling the constitutional function of the High Court in...

Undertaking A challenged in court the sanction applied by the Competition Council under Art. 51 paragraph (1) letter c) of Law no. 21/1996, for violation of Art. 15 paragraph (6) of the same law, consisting in a fine amounting 3,187,463 lei, which signified 0.5% of the turnover attained in 2010 - the financial year preceding that in which the sanction decision was adopted. The appeal was dismissed by the court as unfounded. The provisions of Art. 51/1 paragraph (1) of Law no. 21/1996 (in the relevant applicable form), read as follows: "Through exception from articles 50 and 51 paragraph (1)...

This case refers to an act prohibited by the provisions of art. 5 paragraph (1) of the Competition Law and of art. 101 paragraph (1) The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which consisted in the facts of C. and its distributors, including the applicant, which had an anticompetitive agreement with the effect of isolating the Romanian market and hindering parallel trade with C. products on the common market, and in the act of D. SA and its distributors, including the applicant, who had an anticompetitive agreement which dealt with the restriction of the territory in which distributors...