Aktualita
The Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic succeeded before the Supreme Court, which confirmed the fine of € 9 028 746 for the undertaking Slovnaft, a. s.
Content
On April 18, 2013 the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter referred to as „SC SR“) publicly declared the judgement in the matter of Slovnaft, a. s. versus The Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter referred to as „the Office“). SC SR changed the judgment of Regional Court Bratislava (hereinafter referred to as „Regional Court“), which annulled the decision of the Council of the Office together with the first-instance decision of the Office. SC SR thus upheld the Office´s decision imposing Slovnaft, a. s. the fine of €9.028.746 for abusing of dominant position in form of discrimination in wholesale of diesel oil in Slovakia in the period from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 and in wholesale of petrol in Slovakia from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2006.
Slovnaft, a. s., producer of fuel in Slovakia, belongs to the most up-to-date refineries in Europe. In the time of assessed practice Slovnaft, a. s. was a leader on the petrol wholesale market and diesel oil wholesale market and in determining its pricing policy it could behave independently, as it was not under sufficient competition pressure.
According to the decisions of the Office the company abused its dominant position by non-transparent pricing policy, under the terms of which it set individual prices for purchasers (fuel sellers, merchants, net of retail petrol stations, as well as final consumers) according to their willingness to pay and leave for competitors. Slovnaft, a. s. had sufficient information on preferences of each purchaser and their attractiveness for competitors, therefore the company was able to set individual prices or discounts for each purchaser. Discounts for each individual purchaser were different and they could not be objectively justified, what caused discrimination. Company offered higher prices in comparison with its pricing methodology to those purchasers, who were not attractive enough for competitors and therefore were more dependent on Slovnaft, a. s. As competition policy is closely interconnected with economy, the Office used in support of its argumentation also econometric models commonly used by European Union and other member states.
The aim of the practice was to gain financial advantage, which in the case of Slovnaft, a. s. amounted to 203,27 million SKK (€ 6 747 328). The impact consisted in fact, that purchasers with lesser option to leave for competitor had to pay unjustifiably higher prices, what led to reduction of consumer´s surplus. It was the first case, where the Office calculated damages, i. e. property advantage obtained by Slovnaft, a. s. at the expense of its purchasers. Regional Court dismissed decision of the Office. The Office appealed to the SC SR, which reviewed the challenged judgement of Regional Court and upheld the Office ´s decision. Judgement is without legal remedy.
Slovnaft, a. s., producer of fuel in Slovakia, belongs to the most up-to-date refineries in Europe. In the time of assessed practice Slovnaft, a. s. was a leader on the petrol wholesale market and diesel oil wholesale market and in determining its pricing policy it could behave independently, as it was not under sufficient competition pressure.
According to the decisions of the Office the company abused its dominant position by non-transparent pricing policy, under the terms of which it set individual prices for purchasers (fuel sellers, merchants, net of retail petrol stations, as well as final consumers) according to their willingness to pay and leave for competitors. Slovnaft, a. s. had sufficient information on preferences of each purchaser and their attractiveness for competitors, therefore the company was able to set individual prices or discounts for each purchaser. Discounts for each individual purchaser were different and they could not be objectively justified, what caused discrimination. Company offered higher prices in comparison with its pricing methodology to those purchasers, who were not attractive enough for competitors and therefore were more dependent on Slovnaft, a. s. As competition policy is closely interconnected with economy, the Office used in support of its argumentation also econometric models commonly used by European Union and other member states.
The aim of the practice was to gain financial advantage, which in the case of Slovnaft, a. s. amounted to 203,27 million SKK (€ 6 747 328). The impact consisted in fact, that purchasers with lesser option to leave for competitor had to pay unjustifiably higher prices, what led to reduction of consumer´s surplus. It was the first case, where the Office calculated damages, i. e. property advantage obtained by Slovnaft, a. s. at the expense of its purchasers. Regional Court dismissed decision of the Office. The Office appealed to the SC SR, which reviewed the challenged judgement of Regional Court and upheld the Office ´s decision. Judgement is without legal remedy.