| |
Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic Annual Report 2001
8
proved fact that several competitors of 3H were allowed to continue purchasing oil fuel for lower prices
from the plant in Vl ie hrdlo, as a result of which 3H was disadvantaged in the competition.
The Office also concluded that in the mentioned time period in Slovakia it was not possible to receive
the required amount of the motor oil from other undertakings under the similar price and payment
conditions, including regularity and fluency of supplies as the undertaking Slovnaft did. Based on the
above, the Office decided that by application of different conditions to producer-to-wholesaler supplies
of oil Slovnaft discriminated 3H against its competitors who were active in the same market and were
allowed to continue purchasing oil from Slovnaft’s plant in Vl ie hrdlo.
By such conduct Slovnaft disadvantaged 3H against its own commercial division in Horný Hri ov that
was active in the same relevant market as 3H and was 3H’s direct competitor. The Supreme Court of
SR also confirmed the decision in question.
Undertaking Slovnaft has enforced the similar conduct also against other entrepreneurs in the relevant
market of producer-to-wholesaler supplies of oil and in the relevant market of producer-to-retailer
supplies of fuels. Also in this case the Office decided that such a conduct of undertaking Slovnaft had a
nature of abuse of a dominant position in the relevant market, as enforcing different conditions in
goods supplies constitutes disadvantaging of certain undertakings against their competitors.
Predatory behaviour, loyalty rebates
In 2001 the Office dealt with a practice of possible predatory behaviour of an undertaking in the
relevant market of fuel retailing, geographically determined by one municipality. The undertaking in
question, given the characteristics of the relevant market, its position in this market, financial strength,
possibility of cross-subsidizing, existence of a distribution network, access to sources and
administrative barriers, held a dominant position in the mentioned relevant market.
The practice constituting abuse of a dominant position grounded on enforcement of such a pricing
policy of the undertaking, under which retail prices of fuels sold in Slovnaft filling station within the
defined relevant market were set to target a specific competitor, possibly with an intention to push him
out of the market. The Office dealt with the analysis of price level of this company in the fillling station
in connection with the average total costs and with the intention to eliminate rival.
As the subjected dominant undertaking has de jure extincted in the course of proceedings, it was not
possible to continue the subjected proceedings. But from the view of competition, it is necessary to
point out the danger of predatory behaviour of dominant companies, which are able to behave non-
economically for the certain period of time by anti-competitive reducing of prices within the certain
economic strength, as the aim of each such a strategy of dominant subjects is the following profit from
competition weakening resulted from the economically weaker rival exclusion and then the following
price increasing of their goods or by the other form applied to use their market strenght.
This case of possible predatory behaviour included also loyalty rebates applied by the subjected
undertaking through a bonus system that contained conditional discounts on the price of fuels and was
introduced to get customers in favour of the undertaking in the dominant position.
In the view of competition, it is essential to deal with loyalty rebates or support discounts granted by
dominant undertakings on the grounds other than cost savings and creating a system that discourages
customers from purchasing competing goods, which may lead to a substantial part of the market being
closed for the competitors.
Despite the fact that the assessed undertaking ceased to exist, the Office continues investigating the
case, as the legal successor of the extincted company continues applying of the same bonus system.
Application of different conditions, refusal of access to local telecommunication circuits (Slovak
Telecommunications)
In the period under consideration the Office assessed and decided in the matter of abuse of a
dominant position by Slovak Telecommunications. The analysis of actions taken by this undertaking as
|  |
|
| |
|
|
