Antimonopoly bodies will have to devise measures to counter anticompetitive agreements on local and cross-border markets

Officers from the competition authorities of Japan, Belgium and Austria presented high-profile cases on combating cartels, unfair practices and other violations of the antimonopoly law involving retail chains

At the workshop on “Antimonopoly regulation and countering cartels in retail” at FAS Centre for Education and Methodics in Kazan, representatives of foreign antimonopoly bodies shared their experience of countering violations of the antimonopoly law, including anticompetitive agreements.

The chief economist of Belgium competition authority, Alexis Walckiers reported on a survey, which demonstrated that the level of prices for food and household products is 10% higher than in other comparable countries. The reason was administrative marries for market entry and an increased share of some retail chains. The competition body sent recommendations to Belgian authorities to correct the situation. Alexis Walckiers promised that in some time another survey will be conducted to see which measures are undertaken to reduce prices for food and household products, and he will report the findings at the next workshop organized by FAS Centre for Education and Methodics.

According to the Japan Fair Trade Commission (FTC), the antimonopoly law in Japan has been in place for over 70 years. Competition development is a priority for the government. FTC officers emphasized that retail chains have the dominant position over suppliers; and illustrated it with a case when a large Japanese company in retail sale of children goods had been imposing disadvantageous conditions upon goods suppliers and manufacturers.

A vivid discussion burst out following a presentation by Theresa Echard from Austria Competition Authority, who discussed Austrian antimonopoly enforcement practice in e-commerce. Since 2013 Austria Competition Authority conducted several investigations and imposed numerous fines for anticompetitive conduct associated with on-line sales of goods.

“On-line commerce is picking up steam and regulators are facing new challenges for the antimonopoly law. The complexity of studying those markets is that they tend to change rapidly, and the antimonopoly bodies should pay thorough attention to developing the existing tools of exposing and suppressing cartels and other violations of the antimonopoly law”, emphasized Deputy Head of FAS Anti-Cartel Department, Mukhamed Khamukov.

Head of FAS Department for Control over Social Sphere and Trade, Timophey Nizhegorodtsev, discussed a UNCTAD survey on the trends and issues in retail. He drew attention to UNCTAD recommendations for the antimonopoly bodies aimed at preventing situations when retail chains create discriminatory conditions for suppliers and producers.

Then Deputy Head of FAS Department for Control over Social Sphere and Trade, Ekaterina Uryukina, reported on cases opened by Russian antimonopoly body against large retailers such as “Achan”, “Lenta”, “X5 Retail Group”, “Metro Cash&Carry” and some others.

An advisor to FAS Anti-Cartel Department, Fatima Konieva, outlined a regional aspect of exposing anti-cartel agreements. As detailed examples, she described the case investigated by Mordovia OFAS against cheese producers. The companies concluded and implemented an anticompetitive agreement that could have led to fixing or maintaining prices. Mordovia OFAS found that the companies violated the Law “On Protection of Competition”.

Fatima Konieva also discussed a case investigated by Kursk OFAS. Bread plants entered into an anticompetitive agreement to push a new competitor away from the market by simultaneously terminating supplies to some retail chains. This case is an example of a clear and accurate qualification under Article 11 the Law “On Protection of Competition”. Kursk OFAS conducted full market analysis and collected all necessary evidence.

Head of Samara OFAS, Leonid Pak, emphasized productive cooperation with the law enforcement bodies exposing cartels. He explained to his foreign colleagues that in Russia actions by officials of regional bodies can often have an adverse impact upon competition. Head of Samara OFAS stated that representatives of the subjects of the Russian Federation can be held administratively and criminally liable for their unlawful actions.