Printable version of the document in PDF format.
2001.
GVH`S PROCEEDINGS ENDED WITH THE DECISION OF THE COMPETITION COUNCIL
1. OVERVIEW
|
|
Number of cases |
% of cases |
Imposed fines (1000 HUF) |
% of fines |
Fines imposed for failed notifications (1000 HUF) | |
|
Abuse of dominant position |
33 |
3 |
8.1 |
10,000 |
16.8 |
- |
|
abusive |
15 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
- |
|
restrictive |
12 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
- |
|
composite and other |
6 |
3 |
8.1 |
10,000 |
16.8 |
- |
|
Restrictive agreements |
10 |
1 |
2.7 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
|
horizontal |
7 |
1 |
2.7 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
|
vertical |
3 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
|
composite and other |
0 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
|
Concentration |
81 |
2 |
5.4 |
- |
- |
13,900 |
|
horizontal |
44 |
1 |
2.7 |
- |
- |
13,900 |
|
vertical |
11 |
0 |
0.0 |
- |
- |
0 |
|
composite and other |
26 |
1 |
2.7 |
- |
- |
0 |
|
Antitrust cases altogether |
124 |
6 |
16.2 |
10,000 |
16.8 |
13,900 |
|
Consumer fraud |
59 |
31 |
83.8 |
49,700 |
83.2 |
- |
|
delusion of consumer |
56 |
29 |
78.4 |
39,700 |
66.5 |
- |
|
restricting the choice of onsumer |
2 |
2 |
5.4 |
10,000 |
16.8 |
- |
|
composite |
1 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
- |
|
All cases |
183 |
37 |
100.0 |
59,700 |
100.0 |
13,900 |
|
% of cases |
100,0 |
20.2 |
| |||
Printable version of the document in PDF format.
2. DETAILS
2.1. Unfair manipulation of consumers` choice
|
|
Number of cases [2] |
% of cases |
|
Establishment of the infringement |
25 |
41.1 |
|
Termination after suspension |
6 |
10.7 |
|
GVH`s interventions |
31 |
51.8 |
|
Other terminations |
28 |
48.2 |
|
Other |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Cases altogether |
59 |
100.0 |
|
Fines imposed (1000 HUF) |
49,700 |
|
|
Number of cases ended with imposition of fine |
18 |
|
Printable version of the document in PDF format.
2.2. Abuse of dominant position
|
|
Abusive [3] |
Restrictive [4] |
Altogether [6] |
% | |
|
Infringements |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
6.1 |
|
Termination of proceedings after suspension |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
3.0 |
|
GVH interventions altogether |
0 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
9.1 |
|
Termination of proceedings (without suspension) |
15 |
12 |
3 |
30 |
90.9 |
|
Other |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Cases altogether |
15 |
12 |
6 |
33 |
100.0 |
|
% of cases |
45.5 |
36.4 |
18.2 |
100.0 | |
|
Fines imposed (1000 HUF) |
0 |
0 |
10,000 |
10,000 | |
|
% of fines |
0.0 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 | |
|
Fines related to the proceedings (1000 HUF) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 | |
|
Number of cases ended with imposition of fines |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
Printable version of the document in PDF format.
2.3. Restrictive agreements
|
|
Horizontal [7] |
Vertical [8] |
Composite [9] |
Altogether [10] |
% of cases |
Initiated ex officio |
% of cases initiated ex officio |
|
Illegal agreements |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Termination of proceedings after suspension |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Conditional approval |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
10.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Voluntary acceptance of the proposal of GVH |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
GVH interventions altogether |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
10.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Individual exemption |
3 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
40.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 | |
|
3 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
40.0 |
3 |
75.0 | |
|
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
10.0 |
1 |
25.0 | |
|
Other kind of suspension |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Cases altogether |
7 |
3 |
0 |
10 |
100.0 |
4 |
100.0 |
|
% of cases |
70.0 |
30.0 |
0.0 |
100.0 |
| ||
|
Not notificated |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 | |||
|
Withdrawal of group exemption |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 | |||
|
Initiated ex officio |
2 |
2 |
0 |
4 | |||
|
% of cases initiated ex officio |
50.0 |
50.0 |
0.0 |
100.0 | |||
|
Fines imposed by GVH (1000 HUF) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 | |||
|
% of fines |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 | |||
|
Fines imposed for the failure of the notification of the agreement |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 | |||
|
Cases ended with imposition of fines |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 | |||
Printable version of the document in PDF format.
2.4. Concentrations
|
|
Horizontal [14] |
Vertical [15] |
Composite and other [16] |
Altogether [17] |
% of cases |
Initiated ex officio |
% of cases initiated ex officio |
|
Prohibition |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Conditional approval |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2.5 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Voluntary acceptance of the proposal of GVH |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
GVH intervention altogether |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2.5 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Other refusals |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Approvals |
40 |
10 |
23 |
73 |
90.1 |
4 |
80.0 |
|
2 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
4.9 |
1 |
20.0 | |
|
Other terminations of proceedings |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
2.5 |
0 |
0.0 |
|
Cases altogether |
44 |
11 |
26 |
81 |
100.0 |
5 |
100.0 |
|
14 |
5 |
11 |
30 |
| |||
|
3 |
2 |
3 |
8 | ||||
|
% of cases |
54.3 |
13.6 |
32.1 |
100.0 | |||
|
Not notificated |
4 |
0 |
2 |
6 | |||
|
Initiated ex officio |
2 |
0 |
3 |
5 | |||
|
% of cases initiated ex officio |
40.0 |
0.0 |
60.0 |
100.0 | |||
|
Fines imposed for the lack of notification |
13,900 |
0 |
0 |
13,900 | |||
|
% of fines imposed for the lack of notification |
100.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
100.0 | |||
Footnotes
-
Depending on the type of the case, GVH (Hungarian competition authority) interventions might result in different types of decisions:
- establishment of the infringement: applied in all types of cases (However the category of `failure to notify the concentration` is not included although these are also infringements of the Competition Act. This influence the overall number of infringements and fines.)
- termination of proceedings after suspension: applied in all types of cases (except the concentrations)
- refusal of the exemption: applied in the case of restrictive agreements
- prohibited concentrations (refused notifications): applied in the case of concentrations and restrictive agreements
- imposition of condition: applied in the case of restrictive agreements and concentrations
- voluntary acceptance of the reflections of GVH: applied in the case of concentrations and restrictive agreements -
Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement.
-
Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Termination of proceedings by formal decision in cases initiated ex officio.
-
Termination of proceedings by formal decision in cases initiated ex officio.
-
Termination of proceedings by formal decision in cases initiated ex officio.
-
Cases in which the decisions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Cases in which the decisions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Cases in which the decisions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Cases in which the decisions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement
-
Termination of proceedings by formal decision in cases initiated ex officio.
-
Such decomposition of the time limit is in force only from the 1st of February 2001, therefore the total number of cases is not equal with the sum of the two -phased cases.
-
Such decomposition of the time limit is in force only from the 1st of February 2001, therefore the total number of cases is not equal with the sum of the two -phased cases.