The Latvian Competition Council (KP) has taken decisive action against three companies, SIA “AKE LOGISTIKA,” SIA “LATGALES MULČA,” and SIA “MG Auto,” for their alleged involvement in a prohibited agreement. The firms are accused of exchanging commercially sensitive information related to the conditions of participation in five procurements organized by the state-owned enterprise “Latvijas valsts meži” (LVM), which deals with the provision of wood chips, delivery, chipping, storage, and transportation services.
The KP imposed a collective fine of EUR 163,630 on these companies for their alleged anticompetitive behavior.
The investigation into this case began when LVM, the procurement customer, raised concerns about coordinated actions among applicants during the bid submission process. Further inquiry revealed that the offers submitted by these companies in LVM procurements between 2018 and 2022 displayed remarkable similarities both in content and in the manner of submission, indicating a lack of independence in their bidding.
During the investigation, the KP discovered that in four out of five procurements, all three companies submitted their bids from the same IP address in the Electronic Procurement System (EIS). Additionally, two of the companies used a single email address for registration in the EIS. Representatives of SIA “AKE LOGISTIKA” were also found to be actively involved in the preparation and submission of procurement documentation for all the penalized companies.
Despite these interconnections, the KP emphasized that, under Competition Law, the companies are considered independent market participants. The firms had submitted declarations of independence asserting that their procurement offers were prepared independently.
Ieva Šmite, Director of the Prohibited Agreements Department of the KP, highlighted the gravity of the situation, stating, “General agreements in procurement are agreements between the customer and several suppliers with the aim of determining the procurement contracts to be concluded in the relevant period and providing for their terms, for example, on prices and expected volume… the exchange of commercially sensitive information and the coordination of activities are not allowed and are punishable.”
The imposition of this fine serves as a stern warning to companies engaging in anticompetitive practices and underscores the importance of fair and transparent procurement processes in Latvia.
Source: Eng Lsm
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand