Printable version of the document in PDF format.
2002.
GVH`S PROCEEDINGS ENDED WITH THE DECISION OF THE COMPETITION COUNCIL
1. OVERVIEW
|
|
Number of cases |
% of cases |
Fines imposed (Million HUF) |
% of fines |
Fines imposed for failed notifications (Million HUF) | |
|
Abuse of dominant position |
36 |
15 |
23.4 |
218,5 |
50.1 |
- |
|
abusive |
16 |
7 |
10.9 |
17,5 |
4.0 |
- |
|
restrictive |
14 |
5 |
7.8 |
195 |
44.7 |
- |
|
composite and other |
6 |
3 |
4.7 |
6 |
1.4 |
- |
|
Restrictive agreements |
18 |
10 |
15.6 |
182,46 |
41.9 |
0 |
|
horizontal |
11 |
6 |
9.4 |
122,46 |
28.1 |
0 |
|
vertical |
6 |
3 |
4.7 |
60 |
13.8 |
0 |
|
composite and other |
1 |
1 |
1.6 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
|
Concentration |
65 |
3 |
4.7 |
- |
- |
8,192 |
|
horizontal |
51 |
2 |
3.1 |
- |
- |
6,39 |
|
vertical |
4 |
1 |
1.6 |
- |
- |
0,402 |
|
composite and other |
10 |
0 |
0.0 |
- |
- |
1,4 |
|
Antitrust cases altogether |
119 (!) |
28 (!) |
43.8 |
400,96 |
92.0 |
8,192 |
|
Consumer fraud |
52 |
36 |
56.3 |
35 |
8.0 |
- |
|
delusion of consumer |
52 |
36 |
56.3 |
35 |
8.0 |
- |
|
restricting the choice of onsumer |
0 |
0 |
0,0 |
0 |
0.0 |
- |
|
composite |
0 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
- |
|
All cases [2] |
171 (!) |
64 (!) |
100.0 |
435,96 |
100.0 |
8,192 |
|
% of cases |
100,0 |
37.4 |
| |||
Printable version of the document in PDF format.
2. DETAILS
2.1. Unfair manipulation of consumers` choice
|
|
Number of cases [3] |
% of cases |
|
Establishment of the infringement |
31 |
59.6 |
|
Termination after suspension |
5 |
9.6 |
|
GVH`s interventions |
36 |
69.2 |
|
Other terminations |
16 |
30.8 |
|
Other |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Cases altogether |
52 |
100.0 |
|
Fines imposed (Million HUF) |
35 |
|
|
Number of cases ended with imposition of fine |
17 |
|
Printable version of the document in PDF format.
2.2. Abuse of dominant position
|
|
Abusive [4] |
Restrictive [5] |
Altogether [7] |
% |
Number of cases with EC-Hungarian trade involved | |
|
Infringements |
4 |
5 |
3 |
12 |
33.3 |
0 |
|
Termination of proceedings after suspension |
3 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
8.3 |
0 |
|
GVH interventions altogether |
7 |
5 |
3 |
15 |
41.7 |
0 |
|
Termination of proceedings (without suspension) |
9 |
8 |
3 |
20 |
55.6 |
0 |
|
Other |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2.8 |
0 |
|
Cases altogether |
16 |
14 |
6 |
36 |
100.0 |
0 |
|
% of cases |
44.4 |
38.9 |
16.7 |
100.0 | ||
|
Number of cases with EC-Hungarian trade involved |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 | ||
|
Fines imposed (Million HUF) |
17,5 |
195 |
6 |
218,5 | ||
|
% of fines |
8.0 |
89.2 |
2.7 |
100.0 | ||
|
Fines related to the proceedings (1000 HUF) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 | ||
|
Number of cases ended with imposition of fines |
4 |
5 |
2 |
11 |
Printable version of the document in PDF format.
2.3. Restrictive agreements
|
|
Horizontal [8] |
Vertical [9] |
Composite [10] |
Altogether [11] |
% of cases |
Initiated ex officio |
% of cases initiated ex officio |
Number of cases with EC-Hungarian trade involved |
|
Illegal agreements |
5 |
2 |
0 |
7 |
38.9 |
7 |
53.8 |
0 |
|
Termination of proceedings after suspension |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
5.6 |
1 |
7.7 |
0 |
|
Conditional approval |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
11.1 |
1 |
7.7 |
0 |
|
Voluntary acceptance of the proposal of GVH |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
|
GVH interventions altogether |
6 |
3 |
1 |
10 |
55.6 |
9 |
69.2 |
0 |
|
Individual exemption |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
5.6 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
11.1 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 | |
|
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
5.6 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 | |
|
2 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
22.2 |
4 |
30.8 |
0 | |
|
Other kind of suspension |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
|
Cases altogether |
11 |
6 |
1 |
18 |
100.0 |
13 |
100.0 |
0 |
|
% of cases |
61,1 |
33,3 |
5.6 |
100.0 |
| |||
|
Not notificated |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 | ||||
|
Withdrawal of group exemption |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 | ||||
|
Initiated ex officio |
8 |
5 |
0 |
13 | ||||
|
% of cases initiated ex officio |
61.5 |
38.5 |
0.0 |
100.0 | ||||
|
Number of cases with EC-Hungarian trade involved |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 | ||||
|
% of fines due to GVH intervention |
67.1 |
32.9 |
0.0 |
100,0 | ||||
|
Number of cases where fines were imposed due to GVH intervention |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 | ||||
|
Fines imposed for the failure of the notification of the agreement (Million HUF) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 | ||||
|
Number of cases where fines were imposed due to failure of notification |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 | ||||
Printable version of the document in PDF format.
2.4. Concentrations
|
|
Horizontal [15] |
Vertical [16] |
Composite and other [17] |
Altogether [18] |
% of cases |
Initiated ex officio |
% of cases initiated ex officio |
|
Prohibition |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Conditional approval |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
4.6 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Voluntary acceptance of the proposal of GVH |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
GVH intervention altogether |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
4.6 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Other refusals |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1.5 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Approvals |
44 |
3 |
9 |
56 |
86.2 |
3 |
60.0 |
|
2 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
4.6 |
1 |
20.0 | |
|
Other terminations of proceedings |
2 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
3.1 |
1 |
20.0 |
|
Cases altogether |
51 |
4 |
10 |
65 |
100.0 |
5 |
100.0 |
|
42 |
3 |
10 |
55 |
| |||
|
9 |
1 |
0 |
10 | ||||
|
% of cases |
78.5 |
6.2 |
15.4 |
100.0 | |||
|
Not notificated |
7 |
1 |
3 |
11 | |||
|
Initiated ex officio |
4 |
0 |
1 |
5 | |||
|
% of cases initiated ex officio |
80.0 |
0.0 |
20.0 |
100.0 | |||
|
Fines imposed for the lack of notification (Million HUF) |
6,39 |
0,402 |
1,4 |
8,192 | |||
|
% of fines imposed for the lack of notification |
78.0 |
4.9 |
17.1 |
100.0 | |||
Footnotes
-
Depending on the type of the case, GVH (Office of Economic Competition) interventions might result in different types of decisions:
- establishment of the infringement: applied in all types of cases (However the category of `failure to notify the concentration` is not included although these are also infringements of the Competition Act. This influences the overall number of infringements and fines.)
- termination of proceedings after suspension: applied in all types of cases (except the concentrations)
- refusal of the exemption: applied in the case of restrictive agreements
- prohibited concentrations (refused notifications): applied in the case of concentrations and restrictive agreements
- imposition of condition: applied in the case of restrictive agreements and concentrations
- voluntary acceptance of the reflections of GVH: applied in the case of concentrations and restrictive agreements -
(!) The number of all decisions taken is actually 169, the 171 value provided for in the table is inflated due to the fact that in two cases the decision involved two different infringements. Both in Vj-073/2001 and Vj-60/2002 the question of an abuse of dominant position and restrictive agreements were raised. These cases are both enumerated in the respective matter rows, and are counted twice when mechanically added up. Hence the unbiased number of antitrust cases were not 119 but 117, of which GVH intervened in 27 cases, giving the total number of interventions as of 63.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the statistics provided include only the decisions taken according to the Tpvt (1996 Competition Law), and do not involve the 2 decisions taken (as these cases were due to the intervention of the Supreme Court demanding new investigation) according to the predessor of Tpvt, the Vtv (1990 Competition Law). Both cases (Vj-47/2001 and Vj-53-2002) were initiated as an abuse of dominant position, and in the latter one 1 million HUF fine was imposed. -
Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement.
-
Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Termination of proceedings by formal decision in cases initiated ex officio.
-
Termination of proceedings by formal decision in cases initiated ex officio.
-
Termination of proceedings by formal decision in cases initiated ex officio.
-
Cases in which the decisions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Cases in which the decisions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Cases in which the decisions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Cases in which the decisions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Termination of proceedings by formal decision in cases initiated ex officio.
-
Not all concentration cases are classified as being first or second phase. Such decomposition is not applied to cases closed due to the withdrawal of application, suspension of the investigation and cases not deemed constituting concentration of undertakings.
-
Not all concentration cases are classified as being first or second phase. Such decomposition is not applied to cases closed due to the withdrawal of application, suspension of the investigation and cases not deemed constituting concentration of undertakings.