On December 5, 2016 the Competition Council found that in 2014 UAB Žagarės inžinerija and UAB Rovaltra (hereinafter – Companies) concluded a collusive bidding agreement while participating in the public procurement for the purchase of machinery organised by UAB Fontas LT , and thus breached the Law on Competition.
Last week after the final ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania UAB Mantinga paid a fine of EUR 2 151 417 and EUR 192 569 of interest. The Competition Council (hereinafter – Council) fined UAB Mantinga for a 10-year-long anti-competitive agreement with MAXIMA LT, UAB (hereinafter – MAXIMA LT ). The parties...
Vilnius Regional Administrative Court (hereinafter – Court) rejected the appeals by UAB Aštuoniukė , UAB Audresta and UAB Vežesta and upheld the Competition Council‘s decision whereby Klaipėda City Municipality (hereinafter – Municipality) breached Article 4 of the Law on Competition.
Šarūnas Keserauskas, Chairman of the Competition Council (hereinafter – the Council), presented the authority‘s achievements of 2015 to the members of the Cabinet.
After the final ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania MAXIMA LT, UAB ( MAXIMA LT ) paid a cartel fine of EUR 13 666 216 and EUR 1 082 095,46 of interest. The Competition Council fined MAXIMA LT for a 10-year-long anti-competitive agreement with UAB Mantinga . The parties agreed to refrain from selling...
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.