On May 3, 2016, the Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court
(LSAC) largely upheld fines originally imposed by the Lithuanian
competition authority on travel agency users of an online booking
system. The authority had fined several agencies for concerted
practices related to a common online travel reservation system. The
operator of the reservation platform had sent the travel agents
participating in the system an electronic message capping the
rebates that could be granted for products sold via the system and
had technically adapted the system so as to implement this cap. The
authority found this to constitute an illegal information exchange.
The case ultimately went on appeal to the EU's highest court
(the European Court of Justice) which held that travel agents which
knew the content of the message could be presumed to have
participated in an illegal concerted practice, unless they had
distanced themselves from the message, challenged its imposition or
adduced other evidence to rebut the presumption, such as
systematically granting higher rebates than those set under the
cap. The LSAC in its ruling was applying this judgment to the facts
of the case. It dropped the charges against some agencies for lack
of evidence that they that they were aware of the discount
restrictions but upheld the fines against all of the other agencies
(with some reductions). It is pertinent to note that the
dissemination of any type of restriction, suggestion or
recommendation in relation to pricing and other competitive issues,
or indeed pure information exchange on competitive parameters,
between competitors is dangerous under competition law in the
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist professional advice should
be sought about your specific circumstances. The views expressed in
this article are solely of the authors of this article.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The competition law enforcement in Turkey is based on private and public enforcement pillars. TCA has sole discretion to enforce the Competition Act whereas the litigations initiated by the victims of anti-competitive conduct are seen in private courts.
Daiichi Sankyo İlaç Ticaret Ltd. Şti. ("Daiichi"), a globally active company in the distribution, sale, marketing and importation of pharmaceutical products, and Aksel Ecza Deposu A.Ş. ("Aksel"), a drug wholesaler, entered into a vertical exclusivity agreement ("Agreement").
The Competition Board concluded its investigation with regard to the booking services provided by Booking.com B.V. and by Bookingdotcom Destek Hizmetleri LLC, operating as the Turkish representative of Booking.com.
For the past few years, Turkey has tended to use various trade remedy tools more frequently, thus the number of investigations increases in depth and breadth with the aim of supporting domestic industry...
The CAT in the UK heard on 17 January 2017 an application by Flynn Pharma Ltd and Flynn Pharma (Holdings) Ltd to suspend the Competition and Markets Authority's direction to reduce the price of an epilepsy drug.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).