|
Decision 798/2022 | |
|---|---|
| File (PDF) | Decision 798/2022 |
| Date of Issuance of Decision | November 2nd, 2022 |
| Issue Number of Government Bulletin | Publication pending
|
| Relevant Market |
Import/manufacturing, wholesale and retail of school bags, kids’ lunch bags and pencil cases |
| Subject of the Decision | Subject of the Decision Settlement Decision, following the relevant Statement of Objections (SO) under Ref. No 9215/17.10.2022 by the Commissioner-Rapporteur P. Fotis, adopted under Article 29A of Law 3959/2011 and HCC Decision 790/2022, on the ex officio investigation conducted by the Directorate-General for Competition in the sectors of import/manufacturing, wholesale and retail of school bags, kids’ lunch bags, pencil cases and waist bags, regarding possible anti-competitive practices in the context of vertical agreements, in order to determine whether the conditions for the application of the provisions of Article 1 of L. 3959/2011 (Greek Competition Act), as in force, and/or Article 101 TFEU are met, following the Settlement Submissions by the companies: 1) GRAFFITI IMPORT AND TRADING OF SCHOOL SUPPLIES AND GIFTWARE S.A, 2) POLO S.A. and 3) GIOVAS S.A. – COMMERCIAL, TECHNICAL & TOURISM SA. |
| Legal Framework |
Article 29A L. 3959/2011 and HCC Decision 790/2022. Article 29A was introduced by Article 29 of L.4886/2022, GG Α’ 12/24.01.2022. |
| Operative part of the Decision | By its unanimous Decision, adopted in an open vote, the Hellenic Competition Commission, in plenary: 1. Finds that the companies 1) GRAFFITI IMPORT AND TRADING OF SCHOOL SUPPLIES AND GIFTWARE S.A, 2) POLO S.A. and 3) GIOVAS S.A. – COMMERCIAL, TECHNICAL & TOURISM SA infringed Article 1 of Law 3959/2011 and 101 TFEU, according to the grounds of the decision, due to their participation in prohibited vertical agreements through the practices outlined above, in the context of the Settlement Procedure. 2. Imposes on GRAFFITI IMPORT AND TRADING OF SCHOOL SUPPLIES AND GIFTWARE S.A a fine totalling EUR 36.864 for the aforementioned infringement of Article 1 of L. 3959/2011 and 101 TFEU during the above period. 3. Imposes on POLO S.A. a fine totalling EUR 254.246 for the aforementioned infringement of Article 1 of L. 3959/2011 and 101 TFEU during the above period. 4. Imposes on GIOVAS S.A. – COMMERCIAL, TECHNICAL & TOURISM SA. a fine totalling EUR 162.463 for the aforementioned infringement of Article 1 of L. 3959/2011 and 101 TFEU during the above period. Orders the undertakings involved in the above infringements to cease, if they have not already done so, and refrain in the future from the infringements of Articles 1 of Law 3959/2011 and 101 TFEU established in the grounds of the Decision |
| Company(ies) concerned | 1) GRAFFITI IMPORT AND TRADING OF SCHOOL SUPPLIES AND GIFTWARE S.A 2) POLO S.A. 3) GIOVAS S.A. – COMMERCIAL, TECHNICAL & TOURISM SA. |
| Summary of Decision |
Summary of Decision In this case, the undertakings concerned and their distributors are active at a different level in the marketing chain for school bags, kid’s lunch bags, pencil cases and waist bags, so that their agreements/practices constitute vertical agreements falling within the scope of articles 1 par. 1 Law 3959/2011 and 101 par. 1 TFEU, insofar as they include vertical restraints of competition. In particular, the undertakings engaged in resale price maintenance ("RPM") practices, which the cooperating retailers largely complied with. Therefore, the examined practices fall within the concept of an "agreement" and, in particular, within the concept of a vertical agreement between undertakings operating at a different level in the distribution chain and fall within the scope of articles 1(1) of Law 3959/2011 and 101(1) TFEU. The above practices can have an appreciable effect on intra-Community trade, within the meaning of EU competition rules and, therefore, Article 101 TFEU is applicable in parallel in the present case. At the same time, the conditions are met (in particular, identical subject-matter, products, participating parties, geographical area and methods applied) for the characterisation of the examined practices as a single and continuous infringement, while no individual exemption shall be understood under articles 1(3) of Law 3959/ 2011 and 101(3) TFEU, according to the grounds of the Statement of Objections. |
| Judicial Means | - |
| Decisions by the Court of Appeal of Athens (Administrative Division) | - |
