THE CARTEL AMONG THE UNDERTAKINGS ENGAGED IN THE WASTE MANAGEMENT, RECOVERY AND RECYCLING DISCLOSED

Having examined and assessed the evidence collected in the course of the investigation the Competition Council concluded that the Association of Packaging and Electronic Waste Processors (PEATA), Antraža, UAB, Metransa, UAB, Super Montes, UAB, Utenos antrinis popierius, UAB and Virginijus ir Ko, UAB have concluded an agreement prohibited by the Law on Competition by agreeing the rates for the processing of taxable products and waste packaging and the issue of the certificates of the processing (disposal) of taxable products and waste packaging. Such actions of the market participants violated the requirements of Article 5 of the Law on Competition since the PEATA and the companies, members of the Association operating in the relevant market as competitors have concluded a prohibited agreement by fixing the rates for waste processing and the issue of certificates with an aim to restrict competition in the market. Article 5 of the Law on Competition of the Republic of Lithuania provides for a prohibition of all agreements designed to restrict competition, or which restrict or may restrict competition.

For the prohibited agreement the Competition Council imposed the fines in the following amounts: Association of the Packaging and Electronic Waste Processors (PEATA)– LTL 131,800; Antraža, UAB  – LTL 35,000, Metransa, UAB – LTL 60,700, Super Montes, UAB  – LTL 77,000, Utenos antrinis popierius, UAB – LTL 15,900 and Virginijus ir Ko, UAB – LTL 127,300. The PEATA and the companies concerned were obligated by the Competition Council to terminate the actions constituting an infringement of the Law on Competition where the infringement was still in progress.

The investigation had been commenced by the Competition Council ex officio prompted by the information that the rates for the processing of packaging have increased several times since the beginning of 2007, in the same way as the certificates sold to the Lithuanian producers and importers servicing as an evidence that waste has been managed and constituting a basis for the enterprises to be released from the packaging fee. The Competition Council conducted a large-scale investigation which, in addition to the undertakings concerned, covered the actions of another 37 undertakings operating in Lithuania potentially related to the coordination of the rates for the processing of the waste. The findings of the investigation substantiated a conclusion that the rates (prices) coordinated by PEATA and its members were counter-competitive. The coordinated rates were used as reference rates which has been acknowledged by the managers of the undertakings, as the rates had been applied by PEATA and its members thus artificially increasing the rates (prices) for the services of processing (organisation of managements) of the taxable products and waste packaging and issue of the respective certificates. With a view to ensuring the conditions facilitating competition it is of utmost importance that each undertaking independently decides concerning its behaviour in the market. Prices are considered as one of the most important conditions for fair competition therefore all decisions related to   prices must be taken independently.

The facts and the evidence established in the course of the investigation enabled the Competition Council to arrive at a conclusion that the undertakings concerned, the competitors, and the Association established by them had been coordinating their actions related to the processing of taxable products and packaging constituting a basis for the issue of certificates to the payers of the pollution tax – the producers and importers of the relevant types of taxable products and packaging on the recycling (disposal) of the taxable products and packaging. The actions by which the rates for the processing of the taxable products and packaging and the issue of the relevant certificates were approved and announced on webpage of PEATA, are considered to constitute a prohibited agreements within the meaning of Article 5 of the Law on Competition. The findings of the investigation provided the evidence that the agreements had been put in practice, i.e., the rates had been approved and the respective contracts with the customers concluded.

The investigation also showed that the actions of the undertakings prohibited by the Law on Competition had been of a continuous nature (had been continuing for more than 2 years) since the undertaking who had coordinated the prices had been operating under a common universal scheme to enforce the fixed prices.

Since the investigation had not provided any evidence or data implicating a violation of the Law on Competition by the other 37 undertakings covered, the investigation by the Competition Council in respect of these undertakings was terminated.