IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE INVESTIGATION OF ACTIONS OF UAB SENUKŲ PREKYBOS CENTRAS WAS DISCONTINUED

The meeting of the Competition Council passed a decision to discontinue the investigation concerning the compliance of actions of UAB Senukų prekybos centras with the requirements of Art. 5 of the Law on Competition on the basis of the absence of evidence proving the alleged infringement.

The investigation was started in February 2005 upon receipt of a complaint from UAB VP Market. The applicant indicated that while it was preparing for the opening of a new construction materials and household goods centre Ermitažas it had applied to the domestic and foreign producers offering to supply their goods to the new trading centre. Part of the producers refused to cooperate the reason for that being their obligations to another comparable trading centre UAB Senukų prekybos centras. The applicant claimed that UAB Senukų prekybos centras had been sending to its suppliers different notices inducing them not to cooperate with UAB VP Market; the alleged infringer had also concluded numerous exclusive distribution agreements with other undertakings whereby UAB Senukų prekybos centras had been authorised to distribute the goods of such undertakings in Lithuania and other Baltic States. Such actions, in the opinion of VP Market could restrict the rights of the applicant, a new market player, to freely operate therein.

In the course of the investigation the competition authority obtained and examined over 300 agreements concluded between UAB Senukų prekybos centras and the Lithuanian and foreign suppliers with a view to establishing whether such agreements (those concerning exclusive distribution, in particular) contained any terms potentially restricting competition. Having examined the agreement, however, the Competition Council did not establish any provisions restricting the actions of distributors in conducting their active sales or imposing any non-competition obligations, etc. Another task of the investigation was the examination of correspondence between the UAB Senukų prekybos centras and its suppliers. Such examination proved that responses of the suppliers to the notices by UAB Senukų prekybos centras could not lead to a conclusion that a mutual agreement concerning non-cooperation with the new market participants has been reached.

The investigation did not establish the existence of exclusive distribution agreements between UAB Senukų prekybos centras and the suppliers that according to primary data would hold a significant market share (in excess of 30%), thus producing an impact upon the market. The exclusive distribution agreements neither contained any restrictions upon actives sales, or non-competition obligations valid for a period longer than 5 years, nor any exclusive purchase obligations. Similarly, such conditions were not established in the exclusive distribution agreements concluded with the suppliers that, as claimed by UAB VP Market, refused to cooperate with it.