Here is the converted article in Markdown format:
CPC Declines to Establish Infringement in Cartel Case
The Commission for Protection of Competition (CPC) has announced that it did not have sufficient evidence to establish infringement in a cartel case involving several companies. The CPC conducted an investigation into alleged anti-competitive practices, but ultimately decided that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the existence of a cartel.
New Program for Reducing Fines
In a separate development, the CPC introduced a new program aimed at reducing fines for undertakings that voluntarily cooperate with the investigation and provide evidence of their involvement in a cartel. Under this program:
- The CPC may reduce fines by up to 50% if an undertaking provides sufficient evidence of its participation in the cartel before the completion of the proceedings.
- Undertakings can request a reduction of fines for their participation in a cartel if they cooperate fully and voluntarily with the investigation.
- To be eligible, undertakings must provide all relevant information and evidence related to the cartel.
- They must enable the CPC to interview current and former employees.
- They cannot destroy or falsify evidence.
Marker System
The CPC also introduced a marker system that allows undertakings to reserve a place in line before submitting their formal leniency application. This enables undertakings to maintain their position in the order of submission of information and evidence to the CPC during the time limit provided for completing the request for exemption.
Whistle-blowing and Commercial Partners
The CPC highlighted the importance of whistle-blowing in uncovering anti-competitive practices. An undertaking that blows the whistle on other cartels may receive a reduction of up to 10% of the penalty for its participation in the first cartel.
Additionally, the CPC emphasized the need to address vertical agreements between companies and their suppliers or customers, which can restrict competition. Examples include:
- Vertical agreements for the purchase or sale of goods or services where the agreements are concluded between non-competing undertakings carrying out economic activities on different levels of production and distribution.
- A recent case involving an automotive distributor network in Bulgaria that was fined more than €8 million for maintaining resale prices and restricting sales of competing brands.
Conclusion
The CPC’s decision to decline to establish infringement in this cartel case highlights the importance of gathering sufficient evidence before making a finding of anti-competitive practices. The introduction of new programs aimed at reducing fines for cooperating undertakings and whistle-blowing is also a positive development that may encourage companies to come forward with information about their involvement in cartels.
The CPC’s focus on vertical agreements and restrictions on competition is also important, as these types of agreements can have a significant impact on the market. The agency’s efforts to address anti-competitive practices are crucial for maintaining fair competition in Bulgaria’s economy.