Post by account_disabled on Jan 2, 2024 21:38:11 GMT -7
Asense that in order to establish that an enterprise has participated in an agreement restricting competition a personal behavior of an administrator of the enterprise or the fact that he had knowledge or and has he consented to the conduct of a person who provides outsourced services to the enterprise and who at the same time acts on behalf of other participants in a possible prohibited agreement Short history The local council of Jrmala has launched a tender procedure for the supply of food products to educational institutions.
DIV un Ko Ausma grupa and Prtikas kompanija submitted bids in Country Email List this tender procedure. In order to receive legal assistance for the preparation and for the presentation of its offer Prtikas kompanija turned to SIA Juridisk sabiedrba B partneri. The latter company in turn turned to a subcontractor SIA MMD lietas which received a draft offer from Prtikas kompanija. It is clear from the order for reference that this project was prepared by Prtikas kompanija in complete independence without price consultation with DIV un Ko or Ausma grupa. By decision of October the Competition Council considered that the three bidding companies violated Article paragraph point of the.
Competition Law as they prepared their bids jointly with the aim of simulating effective competition between them. The Competition Council considered that this concerted practice distorted competition and imposed a fine on the respective companies. The companies requested the annulment of that decision in the court and the court only partially annulled the decision holding that Prtikas kompanija had no evidence that it participated in the concerted practice it resorted to a subcontractor. What did the other things be charged with the concerted practice in dispute if it was aware of the anticompetitive objectives pursued by its competitors and the provider and intended to contribute to them through its own conduct. Although such a condition is of course fulfilled where the.
DIV un Ko Ausma grupa and Prtikas kompanija submitted bids in Country Email List this tender procedure. In order to receive legal assistance for the preparation and for the presentation of its offer Prtikas kompanija turned to SIA Juridisk sabiedrba B partneri. The latter company in turn turned to a subcontractor SIA MMD lietas which received a draft offer from Prtikas kompanija. It is clear from the order for reference that this project was prepared by Prtikas kompanija in complete independence without price consultation with DIV un Ko or Ausma grupa. By decision of October the Competition Council considered that the three bidding companies violated Article paragraph point of the.
Competition Law as they prepared their bids jointly with the aim of simulating effective competition between them. The Competition Council considered that this concerted practice distorted competition and imposed a fine on the respective companies. The companies requested the annulment of that decision in the court and the court only partially annulled the decision holding that Prtikas kompanija had no evidence that it participated in the concerted practice it resorted to a subcontractor. What did the other things be charged with the concerted practice in dispute if it was aware of the anticompetitive objectives pursued by its competitors and the provider and intended to contribute to them through its own conduct. Although such a condition is of course fulfilled where the.