[ad_1]
The Regional Administrative Court has responded to the request of the Moller Group by removing the part of the decision of the Competition Council (CPS) and the fines imposed on it by the companies for a sum of several million euros. .
Sandis Zellis, representative of the Regional Administrative Court, said that, by a court judgment of 22 November, the SIA's "Moller Auto Latvia" request requesting the cancellation of the PK 2014 decision, by which Moller Auto Latvia had fined € 1,216,738. and the part imposing a fine of EUR 5,050,542 on Moller Baltic Import Ltd.
In turn, Moller Auto Ventspils Ltd. and Mollers Auto Krasta Ltd were only partially satisfied with the request. The court left the unchanged decision of the Penal Code on the violations found, but removed the fines imposed, forcing the PC to adopt a new administrative act imposing a fine.
Zelli also pointed out that, in the judgment of the Regional Court, he had concluded that the agreement found in the PC also included stand-alone agreements, in which the KP had proved the violation of the first part of the article 11 of the Competition Act in the activities of Moller Auto Krasta and Moller Auto Ventspils.
In particular, the District Court found a fundamental agreement between Volkswagen dealers and importers, whose overall objective was to reduce competition between Volkswagen dealers in single-brand contracts, while the activities of Moller Auto Krasta and Moller Auto Ventspils, Liepaja Special Economic Zone and AS LPB "procurement episodes are considered stand-alone pricing agreements and the exchange of purchase documents.
Zellis explained that, according to the decision of the Regional Court, the CP had not proved the violation of the first part of Article 11 of the Competition Law in the applicants' activities related to the company. basic agreement. However, KP has proved that there was violation of the first part of Article 11 of the Competition Act in the activities of Moller Auto Krasta and Moller Auto Ventspils in connection with autonomous agreements. The decision in this part of the offense is correct. However, the penalty imposed by the PC is incorrect because it also takes into account the circumstances relevant to the basic agreement.
As a result, the KP's sentence decision is set aside, but in view of the gravity of the offenses in order to ensure the effectiveness of competition and justice law, the Regional Court found it necessary to the authority to take a new administrative act in this part, defining "Moller Auto Krasta". Moller Auto Ventspils "in accordance with the circumstances of the violation found in their operations.
The judgment may be appealed to the administrative affairs department of the Supreme Court within one month from the date of the judgment, bringing the cbadation complaint before the court. District Administrative Court.
In 2012, CP detected a systematic alignment of its participation in a procurement process of a minimum duration of five years by a number of Moller Group companies. Six companies – SD Autocentrs, SIA Ripo Autocentrs, Moller Auto Krasta, Moller Auto Ventspils, Moller Auto Latvia and Volkswagen Importers in the Baltic States Moller Baltic Import – for their participation in the KP offense applied in cash a total penalty of 7 € 635,183.
"The court judgment is a logical consequence of this case," the Moller Group companies initially pointed out that the KP's decision was "unjustified and illegal." In the situation in question, the companies also suspended the proceedings when the court in charge of Analysis of the impartial and comprehensive court decision saw the KP statement The Moller Group has always stressed that, because of their activities, there was no distortion or restriction of competition and that buyers of Volkswagen n 'had suffered no prejudice, in accordance with the KP's decision, because of their activities.' The companies of the Moller Group in Latvia and the AS Moller Mobility Group, which includes these companies, have always been very keen to comply competition law by actively competing with other brand-name car dealers and by providing the highest standards of quality. It was only in the interest of his clients that the damage was not damaged in the situation badessed by CP's decision. This is also confirmed by a court decision, "said Gundars Ruža, representative of the Moller Group in Latvia.
Since the Moller Group companies in Latvia and Norway do not support the KP's findings, they appealed against that decision to the Administrative Court.
KP spokeswoman Paula Wilsone said she had received a judgment from the Regional Administrative Court regarding the institution's decision and that she was currently conducting a thorough badysis of the court's reasoning. . After the initial knowledge of the arguments, the PC does not accept the judicial approach chosen to establish the absence of a violation of competition in the activities of the various market players. The judgment as a whole departs from the judgments of the Court of Justice itself set out in the Cartels Agreement.
KP will use the rights set out in the law and will appeal the judgment to the next instance – the Supreme Court.
It has already been reported that in 2014, CP had detected a systematic alignment of its participation in the procurement of a number of Moller Group companies for at least five years. KP found that these subsidiaries did not act independently of their parent companies. As a result, the institution has imposed joint and several liability on several parent companies – Moller Auto Baltic, Harald A.Moller and Heinz Wilke Autohandel. In the KP's decision, the parent companies were jointly and severally liable by establishing 100% of their stake in subsidiaries.
In considering the parent company's claim for indeterminate joint and several liability, the Regional Administrative Court allowed the claim and quashed that party's penal code. The judgment indicates that the Competition Act does not provide for joint and several liability for antitrust infringement of a company other than the direct infringer. However, during the review of the appeal of the CC, AT overturned the judgment of the Regional Administrative Court and concluded that the badysis contained in the judgment was incorrect and insufficient. In this case, the purpose of the law on competition is a market player that is an economic or economic actor, regardless of the legal form of such an economic entity. Thus, the purpose of the competition law is also a parent company. This badessment is also confirmed by the Court of the European Union (EU), whose conclusions apply to the interpretation of the Latvian legal framework.
It was also announced that the Regional Court had previously decided to divest Harald A.Moller AS, Moller Auto Baltic AS and Heinz Wilke Autohandel GmbH as part of a separate proceeding aimed at the cancellation of the KP's decision of 15 December, as well as administrative claims in the separate proceedings of the application for annulment of the said customs union decision, reduction of the fine and non-compliance with the settlement agreement by the SIA SD Autocentrs.
Six companies – SD Autocentrs, SIA Ripo Autocentrs, Moller Auto Krasta, Moller Auto Ventspils, Moller Auto Latvia and Volkswagen Importers in the Baltic States Moller Baltic Import – for their participation in the KP offense applied in cash a total penalty of 7 € 635,183. In addition, a company was completely exempted from the penalty of the leniency program because the information provided by it allowed KP to detect an infringement.
CP found that companies had agreed not to participate in the procurement. For example, companies were able to win a short-listed bidder, while others submitted concerted and less favorable offers to the client, or simply abandoned their participation in the procurement. Dealers have been regularly informed about supply projects, asking others not to compete, not to participate at all or to offer lower prices. In turn, the importer of cars in Latvia, the wholesaler of Moller Baltic Import, knew and did not oppose the sharing of existing market between dealers, but favored and supported to a certain extent the l & # 39; offense, acting as an intermediary for the exchange of information.
The companies of the Moller Group in Latvia did not agree with the decision of the KP and challenged it in court. According to them, the companies did not delay or restrict the competition, and Volkswagen buyers were not prejudiced by their activities. The long-standing situation described in the KP's decision is therefore not an infringement of competition law.
Source link
