The security company G4S Lietuva (G4S) has failed in trying to reopen the proceedings against the Competition Council’s decision imposing the fine on the company for anti-competitive agreements in the market of cash-handling services.
Vilnius County Court acknowledged D. J. guilty of an attempt to bribe an employee of the Lithuanian Competition Council and sentenced him to a suspended sentence of two years in prison, as well as imposed a fine of EUR 7,532.
The Competition Council found that joint bids submitted by two Lithuanian construction firms UAB Irdaiva and AB Panevėžio statybos trestas (PST) restricted competition “by object”, in breach of Article 5 of the Law on Competition (national equivalent of Article 101 TFEU), as both firms could have bid separately. The fines imposed on firms...
This September the Council‘s experts embarked on a mission to teach Vilnius pupils more about fair competition and its benefits brought to business and consumers, which appeared to be something that is self-evident to them.
The Competition Council found the Italian-based supplier Tecnoss Dental and its Lithuanian distributor UAB Implamedica engaged in fixing minimum resale prices of bone regeneration products used in implant dentistry. The infringement resulted in both companies receiving a total of EUR 175,500 of fines.
The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (hereinafter – Court) upheld the Competition Council‘s decision, according to which the security company G4S Lietuva (G4S) infringed the Law on Competition by concluding anti-competitive agreements in the market of cash-handling services and received EUR 2.7 million fine.
During the school year the Council‘s experts will be visiting a number of schools in Vilnius to teach senior pupils the principles of effective competition, its benefits for consumers, as well as help them recognise anti-competitive agreements and misleading advertising, as part of the competition advocacy project “Competition Council goes to school“.
The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (Court) upheld the Competition Council’s decision, according to which in 2011–2012 construction companies concluded bid rigging agreements.
On 1–3 August representatives from the Egyptian Public Prosecution Office learned about the Competition Council’s experience while ensuring effective competition for the benefit of consumers.
The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania (Court) refused to reopen an investigation into the actions of UAB Maxima Lt and UAB Mantinga . The Court upheld the Council’s decision on a 10-year-long anti-competitive agreement between the companies.
The Competition Council found that UAB Elmis, UAB LEDEVILA and UAB Vortex Capital (Companies) concluded a collusive bidding agreement while participating in the public procurement for the purchase of construction and installation works.
On December 8, 2016 the Competition Council found that in 2015 UAB Ekoaplinka , UAB Ecoservice and UAB Marijampolės švara (hereinafter – Companies) concluded a collusive bidding agreement while participating in the public procurement for the purchase of municipal waste collection and transportation services, which was organised by UAB...