| |
Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic Annual Report 2001
7
arrangements presenting division of supply resources and pursuant to the act they restrict competition.
The contract constituted competition restrictions for third parties, i.e. for other suppliers of goods who
were capable of supplying goods to the filling stations, and based on that the Office prohibited the
subjected provisions. The Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic abolished the decision and returned it
back to the new proceedings. But only a procedural mistake in the statement of the decision appealed
by a lawsuit has been a reason of decision abolishment.
Abuse of a dominant position
Identification of undertaking’s position in the relevant market as a dominant position itself does not
create the breach of provision of the Act on Protection of the Competition, but the Office strictly
monitors the behaviour of these dominant companies. The Office prosecutes each behaviour of the
undertaking in dominant position, which restricts the competition in the relevant market. The most
common reason of the anticompetitive conduct of dominant companies is expansionary policy of the
companies with the aim to get into other markets, to generate profit, resulting in strengthening their
position in the market.
Enforcement of inappropriate conditions in the contracts, discrimination, refusal of supplies, restriction
of production, restriction of sale or restriction of technical development of goods to the detriment of
consumers or binding the conclusion of contract with other contractual parties to the additional
fulfilments, which by their nature or by commercial use do not relate to object of contract are the tools
for achieving the mentioned goals.
Investigating the cases of abuse of a dominant position, the Office defined the relevant market, the
share of the assessed subject in this market and its market strength on a basis of analysis of demand
and supply structure. The Office also took the existence of competitive restrictions, so-called barriers
to entry relevant market into account, recognition of which is necessary to prove the dominance of the
assessed subject, which is characterized by such an economic strength of the undertaking, which
enables the undertaking to behave independently from competitors and third parties, including end
consumers and thus prevent effective competition. Consecutively the Office analysed conduct of the
undertakings holding a dominant position in relevant markets, where the possible reduce of intensity of
competition occurs, namely by conduct different from the conduct applied under the usual competitive
conditions.
The Office distinguished two categories of conduct of the undertakings in a dominant position, which
are considered to be an abuse of such a position. First it is conduct of dominant undertaking, directed
to the subjects, depending on supply of relevant goods or services of dominant company, so-called
exploitative forms of abuse of a dominant position in relevant market. Second it is conduct, resulting in
consequential reduce or competition obstacle, namely through elimination of real or potential
competition, so-called eliminating forms of abuse of dominant position in market.
In 2001 the Office assessed 26 cases in the matter of abuse of a dominant position in a relevant
market, within which it issued 17 decisions. In this period the Office assessed abusive practices of the
undertakings mainly in the fields of gas and energy industries. The most frequently assessed practice
of dominants in 2001 was the practice of different conditions application in identical or comparable
fulfilment against the individual undertakings through which the respective undertakings were
disadvantaged in the competition, i.e. the discrimination.
Application of different conditions (Slovnaft)
The Office assessed this form of abuse of a dominant position for example in a case of Slovnaft - a
company holding a dominant position in the market of producer-to-wholesaler supplies of oil in the
territory of SR.
The relevant market in question where the discrimination of undertaking 3H against its rivals took place
was the market of producer-to-wholesalers supplies of oil in the territory of •ilina and Tren ín regions,
where also the undertaking 3H operated. The abuse of a dominant position in the relevant market by
Slovnaft grounded on the application of different conditions of producer-to-wholesalers supplies of oil
between Slovnaft’s production plant in Vl ie hrdlo in Bratislava and its commercial division in Horný
Hri ov. Due to the decision of Slovnaft, 3H undertaking was not allowed to purchase oil from the plant
in Vl ie hrdlo and was redirected to the commercial division in Horný Hri ov where the purchase price
of oil was higher than that of the oil supplied by the plant in Vl ie hrdlo. Decisive in this case was not
the fact that the prices of oil in Horný Hri ov were higher than those in the production plant, but the
|  |
|
| |
|
|
