The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic in the matter of cartel of six construction companies

30.12.2013
The Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic changed the verdict of the Regional Court Bratislava, which in December 2008 annulled the decisions of the Antimonopoly Office in the matter of the cartel of six construction companies, dismissing all actions of the construction companies. There is no possibility of further ordinary appeal and conclusions set out in the decisions of the Antimonopoly Office were upheld.

In 2006 the Antimonopoly Office (decision No. 2006/KH/R/2/116 and decision No. 2005/KH/1/137) decided that companies Strabag a.s., Doprastav, a.s., BETAMONT s.r.o., Inžinierske stavby, a.s., Skanska DS a.s., MOTA - ENGIL, ENGENHARIA E CONSTRUCAO, S.A. concluded a cartel agreement and thus violated the provisions of the Act on Protection of Competition and Art. 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Illegal conduct was associated with the tender for the execution of works for the construction of the D1 highway Mengusovce - Jánovce (stretch from 0.00 to 8.00 km). Above mentioned companies coordinated their behavior in the mentioned tender.

The total fine imposed in this case amounts to nearly 45 million EUR.
The Antimonopoly Office received an indication of possible anti-competitive conduct from the provider - Národná diaľničná spoločnosť, a.s.. Suspicions of an anti-competitive conduct committed by bidders in the present tender were raised by high prices submitted by bidders. Six construction companies participated in the tender in the form of two associations founded for the purpose of preparation and submission of their bids, alternatively, subsequent construction. One of the companies participated in the tender independently.

Three bids were submitted to this tender. Bids were consisted of complex construction works with nearly 900 price units. Antimonopoly Office has found out, based on the previous analysis, that the ratio between the price units submitted by each tenderer showed extremely constant figures. Such a significant conformity is non-standard and it could not be objectively justified otherwise.

There is no ordinary appeal against the judgment of the Supreme Court.