A weekly news magazine Veidas honoured the best state institutions and civil servants, including the Lithuanian Competition Council.
Vilnius Regional Administrative Court (hereinafter – Court) rejected the appeal by UAB Forum Cinemas (hereinafter – Company) against the Competition Council‘s decision whereby the Company was fined EUR 1 384 300 for concluding an anti-competitive agreement.
The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (hereinafter – Court) rejected the appeals by MAXIMA LT, UAB (hereinafter – MAXIMA LT ) and UAB Mantinga and upheld the Competition Council‘s decision, according to which, the aforementioned companies concluded an anti-competitive agreement.
Having evaluated the evidence on the suspected anti-competetive behavior of Lithuanian companies engaged in cement production and trade, the Competition Council (hereinafter – KT) terminated the investigation.
The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (Supreme Court) upheld Lithuanian Competition Council‘s (KT) decision that 29 travel agencies used online booking system E-TURAS to concert practices when applying discounts to bookings and thus breached competition law.
On December 18 Lithuanian Competition Council (KT) announced that three cinema operators, “Forum Cinemas“, “Multikino Lietuva“ and “Cinamon Operations“, had been fixing prices of cinema tickets as part of two separate cartel agreements.
Competition Council sent a Statement of Objections to Klaipėda City Municipality (further – the Municipality) suspected of anticompetitive conduct. According to the Council, the Municipality‘s decision to authorise Audresta , Aštuoniukė , Devintoji banga , Aisčiai and Dešimtas maršrutas (further – the Companies) to provide shared taxi services without a competitive procedure breached Article 4 of the Law on Competition.