Over the past eight months, Stoynev & Partners Law Firm had the opportunity to represent Neochim AD in proceedings before the Commission for Protection of Competition (CPC). The case was initiated by Agropolychim AD and AFER Bulgaria EOOD, alleging a violation of Article 36, Paragraph 4 of the Competition Protection Act.
On August 8, 2024, the CPC issued a decision confirming that our client had not committed the alleged violation. The Commission fully rejected the claims made by the initiators and reasonably concluded that none of the elements of the prohibition under Article 36, Paragraph 4 were present.
The proceedings were particularly complex, requiring a comprehensive analysis of the entire commercial activity within a strategically important market for Bulgaria—the production and distribution of nitrogen fertilizers. The CPC’s decision is significant for future cases of this nature, as it establishes a well-founded interpretation of Article 36, Paragraph 4, affirming that there is no violation when pricing is determined by objective factors that cannot be classified as non-market methods. Furthermore, it is positive that the CPC’s decision also examines the subjective element of the prohibition, specifically whether or not there was an intent to attract customers unfairly.
However, the decision has a critical shortcoming: the prevailing party was not compensated for a substantial portion of its legal expenses. This is a serious issue in complex proceedings such as this one, as it could enable abusive claims against compliant businesses, leaving them unable to recover the full costs of their legal defense.
The decision itself is available on the Commission for Protection of Competition’s website. The full text (in Bulgarian) can be accessed here.
Recent Comments