August 2012 – The Turkish Competition Board recently published its decision on the match-fixing activities of some of Turkey’s football clubs, a scandal that has gripped the Turkish public over the past year. According to the Board, match-fixing is not subject to competition legislation.
August 2012 – The Council of the Slovak Antimonopoly Office upheld a first instance decision in which a Slovak electricity distribution company, ZSE Distribúcia a.s., was fined for abusing a dominant position by charging excessive fees for taking special electricity meter readings in the course of customers’ shifting to another electricity supplier.
August 2012 – The Serbian Competition Authority issued a decision approving a merger between Sberbank and DenizBank. Sberbank owns a subsidiary in Serbia but the target is not present on the Serbian market at all. Nevertheless, the transaction was notifiable in Serbia, because foreign-to-foreign transactions are subject to the merger notification obligation.
August 2012 – The Romanian Competition Council closed an investigation regarding an alleged abuse of the dominant position of the incumbent Romanian telecom operator Romtelecom, which related to an alleged failure to provide the termination service and refusal to expand the capacity of its interconnection link. The Romanian Competition Council concluded that there was insufficient evidence of an abuse of a dominant position.
August 2012 – The Hungarian Metropolitan Court of Appeal handed down two judgments that ruled that the passing-on defence applies to damages claims made under Hungarian law. According to the court, the plaintiff is not entitled to compensation for costs that have been recovered from elsewhere. Therefore, loss that was passed on by the plaintiff to the other parties will not be deemed as loss for the purposes of calculating damages.
August 2012 – The Supreme Administrative Court issued a judgment that confirmed that the agreement between two purchasers (retail chains) on the purchase prices for goods and the commercial terms they applied in relation to their suppliers is a cartel agreement that is subject to competition rules. Although such agreements on the purchase side are quite rare, competition law makes no distinction between such horizontal cooperation and the more usual collusion on the seller side.
On 9 April 2012, the Turkish Competition Board made public its reasoned clearance decision on the merger of the two major cinema chains in Turkey, Mars Sinema and AFM. Following its preliminary evaluation, the Board initiated second-phase investigations in light of fears that the proposed transaction (as defined below) could raise competition concerns. The clearance decision was rendered on 17 November 2011, subject to the remedies implemented by the parties.
On 22 March 2012, the General Court dismissed actions brought by Slovak Telekom against the European Commission Decisions, which imposed an obligation on Slovak Telekom to provide particular information concerning its business activities (including its activities before the accession of Slovakia to the European Union) and stated that Slovak Telekom will be fined if it does not comply with the Decisions.
On 26 January 2012, the Commission for the Serbian Competition Authority issued a decision setting the amount of fines for 12 pharmaceutical companies which the Competition Authority had found guilty of anticompetitive practices in its decision of 12 December 2008.
On 18 April 2012, the Competition Council published its findings in a detailed report regarding its sector inquiry aiming at a better understanding of the auto vehicle spare parts market. The report contains certain recommendations made in order to address concerns regarding competition which have been identified. Special attention was paid to the impact on competition of IP rights on the market for visible spare parts.