Notícias
Cade realizou sessão de distribuição na quinta-feira (25/01)
Vinte e dois processos administrativos foram sorteados para relatoria dos conselheirosCompartilhe:
Compartilhe por Facebook Compartilhe por Twitter Compartilhe por LinkedIn Compartilhe por WhatsApplink para Copiar para área de transferência
Publicado em 26/01/2024 09h43 Atualizado em 26/01/2024 09h59
OConselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (Cade) realizou, na última quinta-feira (25/01), a 301ª Sessão Ordinária de Distribuição. Nas sessões de distribuição, os casos em análise na autarquia são encaminhados para um conselheiro relator, designado por sorteio.
Confira abaixo os casos sorteados:
1.Processo Administrativo nº 08700.002070/2019-35
Representados: Akira Wada, Hideki Takasaki e Mitsuhiro Chiba.
Relator: conselheiro José Levi Mello do Amaral Júnior
2. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.000556/2019-39
Representados: Ciemarsal Comércio de Indústria e Exportação de Sal Ltda. – ME.
Relator: conselheiro Diogo Thomson de Andrade.
3. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.003473/2021-16
Representados: Conselho Federal de Fisioterapia e Terapia Ocupacional – COFFITO e Conselho Regional de Fisioterapia e Terapia Ocupacional da 15ª Região – CREFITO.
Relator: conselheiro Carlos Jacques Vieira Gomes.
4. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.004558/2019-05
Representados: Bernd Brünig, Faustino Luigi Minchella, Jose Angel Viani Barroyeta
Relator: conselheiro Carlos Jacques Vieira Gomes.
5. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.001164/2018-14
Representados: Azevedo Bento S/A Comércio e Indústria, Refisa Indústria e Comércio Ltda, SPO Indústria e Comércio Ltda e pessoas físicas.
Relator: conselheiro Victor Oliveira Fernandes.
6. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.000881/2019-00
Representados: LUK GmbH & Co. KG, Schaeffler Brasil Ltda., Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG, Valeo S.A, Valeo Sistemas Automotivos Ltda. – Divisão Transmissões, Valeo Sistemas Automotivos Ltda. – Divisão Valeo Service, Valeo Sistemas Automotivos Ltda., ZF do Brasil Ltda., ZF Friedrichshafen AG, ZF Sachs AG e pessoas físicas.
Relator: conselheira Camila Cabral Pires Alves.
7. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.005683/2019-24
Representados: Sindicato das Academias do Rio de Janeiro (Sindacad/RJ), Sindicato dos Profissionais de Educação Física do Rio de Janeiro (Sinpef/RJ) e pessoas físicas.
Relator: conselheiro José Levi Mello do Amaral Júnior.
8. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.003266/2022-42
Representados: Campneus Comercial e Importadora de Pneus LTDA, Della Via Pneus, Tropical Pneus, Pneuaço Administração e Participações Ltda, Santa Helena Pneus (Irmãos Silva S/A), Pirelli Comercial de Pneus Brasil Ltda e Prometeon TP industrial de Pneus Brasil Ltda. e pessoas físicas.
Relator: conselheiro Gustavo Augusto Freitas de Lima.
9. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.010979/2013-71
Representados: Orion Eletric Corporation Ltd. e pessoas físicas.
Relator: conselheira Camila Cabral Pires Alves.
10. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.000335/2019-61
Representada: Cooperativa dos Médicos Anestesiologistas da Bahia (Coopanest-BA).
Relator: conselheiro Carlos Jacques Vieira Gomes.
11. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.002501/2022-69
Representados: Conselho de Arquitetura e Urbanismo do Brasil (“CAU”).
Relator: conselheiro José Levi Mello do Amaral Júnior.
12. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.004093/2020-18
Representados: Sindicato dos Corretores de Imóveis de Goiás; Federação Nacional dos Corretores de Imóveis (FENACI); Sindicato dos Corretores de Imóveis de Alagoas; Sindicato dos Corretores de Imóveis da Bahia; Sindicato dos Corretores de Imóveis do Ceará; Sindicato dos Corretores de Imóveis do Distrito Federal; Sindicato dos Corretores de Imóveis do Espírito Santo; Sindicato dos Corretores de Imóveis do Pará; Sindicato dos Corretores de Imóveis do Pernambuco; Sindicato dos Corretores de Imóveis do Paraná; Sindicato dos Corretores de Imóveis de Minas Gerais; Sindicato dos Corretores de Imóveis de Sergipe.
Relator: conselheiro Victor Oliveira Fernandes.
13. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.003826/2015-30
Representados: Detalhe Serigrafia e Confecções; Francisco Flávio de Carvalho ME, “Infodigital”; F. N. dos Santos Neto – ME, “Ideal Artes Gráficas”; Gerusa Rodrigues de P. Oliveira ME, “Gerusa Confecções”; Gisnaude Gentil Fernandes de Souza – ME, “Gráfica Brasil”; João Batista Dantas Maia ME, “BM Gráfica”; L de L Alves ME, “Gráfica Luzia”; M. C. Batista dos Santos ME, “J L Gráfica”; M. X. Formiga Frota EPP, “Repet Design”; Ricardo Gomes da Silva ME, “RGS Impressos Gráficos” e pessoas físicas.
Relator: conselheiro José Levi Mello do Amaral Júnior.
14. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.008413/2014-60
Representados: Associação Brasileira da Indústria Elétrica e Eletrônica (Abinee); Dowertech da Amazônia Indústria de Instrumentos Eletrônicos Ltda. (atual Wasion da Amazônia Indústria de Instrumentos Eletrônicos Ltda.); Eletra Indústria e Comércio de Medidores Elétricos Ltda.; Elo Sistemas Eletrônicos S.A.; Elster Medição de Energia Ltda.; FAE Sistemas de Medição S.A.; Itron Sistemas e Tecnologia Ltda.; Itron Soluções para Energia e Água Ltda.; Itron, Inc.; Landis+Gyr Equipamentos de Medição Ltda.; Nansen Instrumentos de Precisão Ltda e pessoas físicas.
Relator: conselheiro Carlos Jacques Vieira Gomes.
15. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.003528/2016-21
Representados: pessoas físicas.
Relator: Conselheiro Carlos Jacques Vieira Gomes.
16. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.005915/2022-40
Representados: Auto Posto Pacaembu LTDA; Auto Posto Beija Flor (Franciene Soares Rocha); Auto Center Pacaembu; Central Auto Posto Ltda; Auto Posto Melo Borges Eireli; Auto Posto Capelinha Eireli; Posto Brasil LTDA; Auto Service Joia Comercio de Combustíveis Eireli (Kurujão 93); Auto Posto K92 Eireli (Kurujão 92); Costa e Lourenço Comercio de Combustíveis Ltda (Kurujão 83); Posto Nossa Senhora Aparecida LTDA (Posto Nossa Senhora Aparecida); Posto Via Azul LTDA; Posto Mirante Prime LTDA (Posto Mirante Prime); Posto Boa Vista Ltda; Auto Posto Nippon Ltda; Posto Milani Gasparoto Comércio de Combustíveis e Loja de Conveniência (Posto Milani); Posto Palmeira Imperial Ltda (Posto Milani); Posto e Conveniência Talismã LTDA (Posto Milani); Auto Posto Zumpano 8 LTDA (Grupo Forte); Auto Posto Zumpano 9 LTDA (Grupo Forte); Auto Posto Zumpano 10 LTDA (Auto Posto Zumpano 10); Auto Posto Zumpano 11 LTDA; Cinquentão Comércio de Combustíveis LTDA; Cinquentão Comércio de Combustíveis LTDA; Cinquentão Comércio de Combustíveis LTDA; Grupo Cinquentão Comércio de Combustíveis LTDA (Posto Apolo); Posto Automan LTDA; Posto Automan LTDA (Posto Automan 1) e pessoas físicas.
Relator: conselheiro Carlos Jacques Vieira Gomes.
17. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.000413/2021-41
Representados: AMV Oficina Mecânica Eireli, Braslimp Serviços Ltda., Conservo Serviços Gerais Ltda., Vix Serviços – ES Ltda., Serdel Serviços e Conservação Ltda., Serge Serviços Conservação e Limpeza Ltda., Servlimp Serviços de Conservação e Limpeza de Vitória Ltda. e pessoas físicas.
Relator: conselheiro José Levi Mello do Amaral Júnior.
18. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.003388/2018-52
Representados: Ana Proneli Bremm de Castro ME; Atos Livraria e Papelaria EIRELI EPP; Drogaria Furtado Ltda. ME; E.B de Castro Junior Cafeteria e Informática EPP (antiga DPM de Castilho Cafeteria e Informática. EPP); Lopes & Pereira Ltda. ME; Marilza Tomaz Pereira Cabeleireiros ME e pessoas físicas.
Relator: conselheira Camila Cabral Pires Alves.
19. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.000379/2020-24 19
Representados: Companhia Ultragaz S/A, Copagaz Distribuidora de Gás S/A, D.P.H. Vitol (MGás), Dourados Revendedora de Gás Ltda., Edgas Ltda – ME (Edgás), GNB Distribuidora de Gás – EPP (GNB Distribuidora de Gás Supergasbras), GR Gás Ltda. – ME (Graziele Gás), JE Machado Comércio de Gás (Big Gás), Kushida & Cia Ltda. – ME (Nippongaz), Kushida & Kushida Ltda. – EPP (Nippongaz), Mauro Victol ME (MGás), Megapreço Gás e Água Mineral, Paiva & Paiva Ltda – ME (Paivinha Comércio de Gás), Revendedora de Gás Bahia Ltda. (Gás Bahia) e Victol & Victol – ME e pessoas físicas.
Relator: conselheiro José Levi Mello do Amaral Júnior.
20. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.002420/2022-69.
Representados: Conselho Federal de Odontologia (“CFO”).
Advogados: sem advogados constituídos.
Relator: conselheira Camila Cabral Pires Alves.
21. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.002502/2022-11
Representados: Conselho Federal de Farmácia (“CFF”).
Relator: conselheiro Gustavo Augusto Freitas de Lima.
22. Processo Administrativo nº 08700.005638/2020-11
Representados: Augustinho Stang, Stang & Stang Ltda (Posto Delta), Stang & Stang Ltda (Posto Delta), Stang & Stang Ltda (Posto Delta), Stang & Stang Ltda (Posto Delta), Centro Automotivo Delta Ltda, Marco A. Dinon & Cia Ltda, Posto Dinon Ltda, Auto Posto Cipó Ltda, Auto Posto Cipó Ltda, Auto Posto Cipó Ltda, Candoi – Comércio de Combustíveis Ltda, Candoi – Comércio de Combustíveis Ltda, Panda Comércio de Combustíveis e Serviços Ltda, Panda Comércio de Combustíveis e Serviços Ltda, Panda Comércio de Combustíveis e Serviços Ltda., Panda Comércio de Combustíveis e Serviços Ltda, Panda Comércio de Combustíveis e Serviços Ltda, Panda Comércio de Combustíveis e Serviços Ltda, Stopetróleo S.A. – Comércio de Derivados de Petróleo (Rede Stop), Stopetróleo S.A. – Comércio de Derivados de Petróleo (Rede Stop), Stopetróleo S.A. – Comércio de Derivados de Petróleo (Rede Stop).
Relator: conselheira Camila Cabral Pires Alves.
CMA board meeting minutes
This collection brings together all the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) board meeting minutes.From:Competition and Markets AuthorityPublished4 February 2014Last updated26 January 2024 — See all updatesGet emails about this page
Contents
- 2023 minutes
- 2022 minutes
- 2021 minutes
- 2020 minutes
- 2019 minutes
- 2018 minutes
- 2017 minutes
- 2016 minutes
- 2015 minutes
- 2014 minutes
- 2013 minutes
The members of the CMA board are set out in the ‘Our management’ section of the CMA’s homepage.
Referral of the proposed subsidy to BMW UK Manufacturing Limited by the Department for Business and Trade
The Subsidy Advice Unit (SAU) has published a report providing advice to the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) concerning a proposed subsidy to BMW UK Manufacturing Limited (BMW).From:Competition and Markets AuthorityPublished13 December 2023Last updated26 January 2024 — See all updatesCase type:SAU referralCase state:ClosedMarket sector:Motor industryOpened:12 December 2023
Contents
- Administrative timetable
- Final report
- Request from the Department for Business and Trade
- Information about the subsidy provided by the Department for Business and Trade
- Information for third parties
- Notes to third parties wishing to make a submission
- Contacts
Administrative timetable
| Date | Action |
| 26 January 2024 | SAU’s report published |
| 3 January 2024 | Deadline for receipt of any third party submissions (submissions after 5pm on this date cannot be taken into account) |
| 12 December 2023 | Beginning of reporting period |
Final report
26 January 2024: The SAU has published its report providing advice to DBT concerning the proposed subsidy to BMW. The report sets out our evaluation of DBT’s Assessment of Compliance of its proposed subsidy with the requirements set out in the Subsidy Control Act 2022.
- Final report (PDF, 252KB) (26.1.24)
Request from the Department for Business and Trade
12 December 2023: The SAU has accepted a request for a report from DBT for its proposed subsidy to BMW. This request relates to a Subsidy of Particular Interest.
The SAU will prepare a report, which will provide an evaluation of DBT’s assessment of whether the subsidy complies with the subsidy control requirements (Assessment of Compliance). The SAU will complete its report within 30 working days.
Information about the subsidy provided by the Department for Business and Trade
The primary policy objective of this subsidy is to support the transition of the UK automotive manufacturing industry to the production of electric vehicles, chiefly in the form of funding for capital investment in new tooling, machinery and re-training or upskilling of employees in the sector.
In this case, DBT propose to provide BMW with a subsidy of £75 million by means of an exceptional Regional Growth Fund (eRGF) grant to convert its plant at Oxford to produce two new electric MINI models from 2026. Plant Oxford faces competition from another location. A grant of £75 million is necessary to achieve internal targets and make the Plant Oxford project viable. Due diligence concluded that there is a strong case for assistance and that £75 million represents the minimum grant necessary for BMW to proceed with the Oxford project.
If the project is not allocated to Oxford the plant would be left producing only internal combustion engine (ICE) models of the MINI for which demand is expected to decline as zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) gain market share and MINI moves towards becoming an all-electric brand. This would result in declining production volumes at Oxford, significant impacts on staff levels and suppliers, and consequently a substantive risk Oxford would not be in a competitive position to secure future vehicle production projects after ICE production ends in 2030.The subsidy will therefore help secure the future of the Oxford plant as well as BMW’s Swindon pressing plant which supplies it. In addition to supporting the automotive sector in transitioning to the manufacture of ZEVs, securing the project will put the plant in a very strong position in terms of winning future product allocations.
At present, the UK automotive industry chiefly produces ICE vehicles, mostly for export (around 80% of output is for the export market), although the proportion of new electric and hybrid electric vehicles is increasing. However, with the banning of the sale of new ICE vehicles from 2035 the UK and moreover the sector itself faces a choice between allowing the sector to go into decline and in so doing losing major benefits in terms of employment, skills and trade; or to invest in the transition to electrification. The latter is DBT’s preferred option, therefore in order to transition to the manufacture of electric vehicles and to maintain a competitive, viable manufacturing presence, both domestically and internationally, particularly in terms of trade the UK requires significant capital expenditure and investment in skills and re-training. The purpose of this subsidy is to support such investment.
Information for third parties
If you wish to comment on matters relevant to the SAU’s evaluation of the Assessment of Compliance concerning DBT’s proposed subsidy to BMW, please send your comments before 5pm on the date stipulated in the timetable above. For guidance on representations relevant to the Assessment of Compliance, see the section on reporting period and transparency in the Operation of the subsidy control functions of the Subsidy Advice Unit.
Please send your submissions to us at SAU-BMWGrant2023@cma.gov.uk copying the public authority at Autounit@beisgov.onmicrosoft.com.
Please also provide a contact address and explain in what capacity you are making the submission (for example, as an individual or a representative of a business or organisation).
Notes to third parties wishing to make a submission
- the SAU will only take your submission into account if it can be shared with DBT. The SAU will send a copy of your submission to DBT together with its report. This is to allow the public authority to take account of the submission in its decision as to whether to grant or modify the subsidy or its assessment. We therefore ask that you provide express consent for your full and unredacted submission to be shared. We also encourage you to share your submission directly with DBT using the email address provided above
- the SAU may use the information you provide in its published report. Therefore, you should indicate in your submission whether any specified parts of it are commercially confidential. If the SAU wishes to refer in its published report to material identified as confidential, it will contact you in advance
- for further details on confidentiality of third party submissions, see identifying confidential information in the Operation of the subsidy control functions of the Subsidy Advice Unit
Contacts
- SAU project team: SAU-BMWGrant2023@cma.gov.uk
- CMA press team: 020 3738 6460 or press@cma.gov.uk
Casos
CMA
- Vodafone / CK Hutchison JV merger inquiry
- 26 January 2024
- Competition and Markets Authority case
CMA launches formal investigation into Vodafone / Three merger
Investigation will examine the potential impact the proposed deal could have on competition for consumers and businesses.From:Competition and Markets AuthorityPublished26 January 2024
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has today started its Phase 1 investigation looking into Vodafone UK’s joint venture agreement with Three UK.
The deal would combine the companies’ telecommunications operations under one single network provider.
Having now received the required pre-notification evidence and information from both Vodafone UK and Three UK, as well as early views from stakeholders, the CMA is starting its formal investigation.
The CMA now has up to 40 working days to assess the deal as part of a Phase 1 investigation. This review is designed to identify whether the deal may lead to a ‘substantial lessening of competition’ and – if so – whether a more in-depth Phase 2 investigation is required.
Sarah Cardell, Chief Executive of the CMA, said:
This deal would bring together two of the major players in the UK telecommunications market, which is critical to millions of everyday customers, businesses and the wider economy. The CMA will assess how this tie-up between rival networks could impact competition before deciding next steps.
We now have 40 working days to complete this formal Phase 1 investigation, before publishing our findings and any next steps.
The CMA’s remit, by law, is to assess the potential impact of a merger on competition. It cannot consider other potential effects that a merger might have, for example, on access to personal data. National security concerns are a matter for the UK government, which may choose to intervene under the National Security and Investment Act if it finds concerns.
More information on the CMA’s investigation can be found on the Vodafone / CK Hutchison JV case page.
Notes to editors
- Vodafone UK is owned by Vodafone Group Plc. Three UK is owned by CK Hutchison Holdings Limited.
- The 4 mobile network operators in the UK are Vodafone UK, Three UK, BT/EE and Virgin Media O2.
- The CMA can only open a formal investigation when it has the information and evidence it needs from the merging parties to assess the effects of a merger. The amount of time it takes to gather this information varies from case to case depending on the complexity of the issues and how quickly the parties provide the required information.
- The CMA is now inviting views by 9 February 2024 on how the merger could affect competition. This follows the preliminary invitation to comment (ITC) launched in October 2023. Under the CMA’s rules a Phase 1 merger investigation must be completed within 40 working days. The statutory deadline for this investigation is Friday 22 March 2024.
- If the CMA finds the merger could lead to a substantial lessening of competition, then it can refer it for a more in-depth Phase 2 merger investigation. Phase 2 investigations last between 24 and 32 weeks and are led by an independent panel of experts.
- As part of its normal merger review process in a regulated sector, the CMA has been engaging with Ofcom, the sectoral regulator which oversees mobile communications.
- For media enquiries, contact the CMA press office on 020 3738 6460 or press@cma.gov.uk.
Draycott notifica a aquisição do controlo exclusivo sobre a Purever.
Ficha do processo
AdC sanciona multinacionais por práticas anticoncorrenciais no mercado laboral
Comunicado 04/2023
25 de janeiro de 2024
A Autoridade da Concorrência (AdC) sancionou duas multinacionais da área da consultoria tecnológica por práticas anticoncorrenciais no mercado laboral durante os anos de 2014 a 2022.
Este é o segundo processo por práticas restritivas da concorrência nos mercados laborais, que resultou em sanções, desde que em 2020 a AdC interveio pela primeira vez no mercado de trabalho.
As empresas colaboraram com a AdC, abdicando de contestar a imputação factual da AdC e apresentando prova relevante da existência da infração, e procederem ao pagamento voluntário da coima por terem acedido ao procedimento de transação.
Às empresas foram aplicadas coimas de €1.323.000 e €2.481.000, reduzidas em resultado da colaboração. Além da adesão ao procedimento de transação, uma das empresas aderiu também ao regime de clemência.
O recurso ao procedimento de transação permite alcançar ganhos processuais relevantes, sem deixar de sancionar as empresas que cometem infrações à concorrência.O processo, sob a designação PRC 2022/3 prossegue relativamente às restantes empresas investigadas.
As práticas anticoncorrenciais no mercado laboral
Os acordos de não-contratação, ou de “no-poach”, consistem em acordos através dos quais as empresas se comprometem a não contratar ou efetuar propostas espontâneas aos trabalhadores das empresas com quem estabeleceram o acordo.
A prática de “no-poach” é proibida pela Lei da Concorrência, uma vez que limita a autonomia das empresas na definição de condições comerciais estratégicas, neste caso, a política de contratação de recursos humanos, podendo verificar-se em qualquer setor de atividade.
A prática é ainda suscetível de afetar os trabalhadores pela redução do seu poder negocial e do nível salarial e privação da mobilidade laboral.
Em 2021, a AdC publicou um Relatório e um Guia de Boas Práticas para prevenção destes acordos de não-contratação de trabalhadores.
ACCC to examine prices and competition in supermarket sector
Date
25 January 2024
The ACCC welcomes today’s announcement by the Australian Government that it will direct the ACCC to conduct an inquiry into Australia’s supermarket sector, including the pricing practices of the supermarkets and the relationship between wholesale, including farmgate, and retail prices.
The year-long inquiry will also examine competition in the supermarket sector and how it has changed since the ACCC’s last inquiry in 2008.
“We know grocery prices have become a major concern for the millions of Australians experiencing cost of living pressures,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.
“When it comes to fresh produce, we understand that many farmers are concerned about weak correlation between the price they receive for their produce and the price consumers pay at the checkout.”
“We will use our full range of legal powers to conduct a detailed examination of the supermarket sector, and where we identify problems or opportunities for improvement, we will carefully consider what recommendations we can make to Government,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.
Following the ACCC’s 2008 inquiry, Coles and Woolworths provided enforceable undertakings to the ACCC to remove restrictive tenancy provisions that may have prevented shopping centres from leasing space to competing supermarkets. The ACCC’s investigation identified more than 700 potentially restrictive leases.
“Competitive markets encourage more attractive combinations of price and quality for consumers, as well as greater choice,” ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said.
“Our inquiry will examine the nature of the current competitive environment between supermarkets, as well as the barriers to greater competition and new entry in the sector.”
“We believe we are well placed to conduct this broad-ranging inquiry and will bring to bear our expertise in competition, consumer law, agriculture and the supermarket sector in particular,” Mr Keogh said.
The inquiry will also look at any emerging issues related to more recent trends, including online shopping, changes in technology, and loyalty programs.
The ACCC expects to publish an issues paper in February seeking views on the key issues it will consider in this inquiry. An interim report will be provided to the Australian Government later this year, and the final report is due to be provided early next year.
The ACCC will publish the formal direction from the Australian Government, including the terms of reference, when it receives it.
Background
Under Part VIIA of the Competition and Consumer Act, the Treasurer can direct the ACCC to hold a price inquiry into a particular matter.
Such an inquiry allows the ACCC to use its compulsory information-gathering powers to collect information from the relevant parties subject to the inquiry.
The ACCC’s inquiry into the supermarket sector is separate to the Government’s recently announced review of the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, which relates to the conduct of retailers and wholesalers towards suppliers.
The ACCC currently has a role in promoting compliance with the voluntary Food and Grocery Code, and will be actively contributing to this review of the Code.
The ACCC recently indicated that it has been closely considering reports from consumers alleging false or misleading “was/now” or other pricing “specials” advertised by the supermarkets, and whether they may raise concerns under the Australian Consumer Law. The ACCC’s assessments are ongoing and are entirely separate from this new inquiry into the supermarket sector.
For updates, visit the Supermarket sector inquiry 2024-25.
Release number
06/24
ACCC Infocentre
Contact us to report an issue or make an enquiry.
Media enquiries
Media Team – 1300 138 917, media@accc.gov.au
ACCC consults on Australia Post’s proposed stamp price increase
Date
25 January 2024
The ACCC is seeking stakeholder feedback on its preliminary view that it will not object to Australia Post’s proposal to increase the price of its reserved ordinary letter service by 25 per cent.
Under the draft proposal, Australia Post intends to increase the price for reserved ordinary letters delivered to the regular timetable from:
- $1.20 to $1.50 for ordinary small letters
- $2.40 to $3.00 for ordinary large letters up to 125 grams
- $3.60 to $4.50 for ordinary large letters between 125 grams and 250 grams.
Australia Post is not proposing to increase the price of concession stamps ($3 for five) or stamps for seasonal greeting cards (65 cents).
For an average Australian who sends approximately 15 small letters per year, the price increase would result in an additional cost of $4.50 per year.
After assessing the draft price notification in line with its role, the ACCC has concluded that Australia Post is not likely to recover revenue in excess of its costs for its reserved postal services.
“Our assessment found that Australia Post’s proposed price increase is unlikely to produce surplus revenue for the reserved letter service over the coming years,” ACCC Deputy Chair Mick Keogh said.
Australia Post forecasts that the number of delivery addresses will grow by about 200,000 per year, while the volume of domestic addressed letters delivered by Australia Post is projected to decline by 11.3 per cent a year until 2025-26.
“Australia Post’s ordinary letter delivery remains a crucial national service, however it faces increasing financial pressure in a landscape now dominated by digital forms of communication,” Mr Keogh said.
“We’re very conscious of the cost-of-living pressures currently affecting Australians, and we acknowledge that the stamp price increase will have some impact on consumers and small businesses.”
“We consider that Australia Post should explore affordability measures for small businesses reliant on the letter service,” Mr Keogh said.
As part of its draft price notification assessment, the ACCC also examined Australia Post’s cost allocation and operating efficiency.
“We identified several improvements that Australia Post could make to the way it allocates costs, but found these changes would be unlikely to make the reserved letter service profitable,” Mr Keogh said.
The ACCC has provided Australia Post with a series of recommendations to improve its cost allocation model, record keeping, and information sharing.
“We expect Australia Post to implement our recommendations so we can properly consider any future proposed price increase,” Mr Keogh said.
The ACCC invites submissions in response to its preliminary view paper by 15 February 2024. Submissions received will be considered by the ACCC in making its final decision.
The preliminary view paper is available at: Australia Post – letter pricing 2023.
The ACCC will issue a final decision after it receives a formal price notification from Australia Post.
Australia Post must also notify the Minister for Communications of the proposed price increase and must not increase prices if the Minister rejects the proposal within 30 days.
Background
Australia Post’s proposed price change was outlined in a draft price notification provided to the ACCC in August 2023, revised in November, and corrected in December.
In September 2023, the ACCC undertook initial consultation on the August 2023 draft price notification. The ACCC has considered the submissions received through the September 2023 consultation in developing its preliminary view.
Under the Competition and Consumer Act, the ACCC is responsible for assessing proposed price increases by Australia Post for its reserved ordinary letter services delivered to its regular timetable. The ACCC must consider Australia Post’s proposal to increase the price of these services and may decide to:
- not object to the price increase
- not object to a price that is less than that proposed, or
- object to the price increase.
The ACCC does not have the role of approving any proposed price increase under the Australia Post price notification framework. Only the Minister for Communications has the power to reject a price increase proposed by Australia Post.
The price notification assessment was conducted concurrently with the Australian Government’s modernisation review into postal services. The initial outcomes of this review were announced in December 2023 and include a range of proposed changes to Australia Post’s performance standards. The ACCC has considered the implications of the modernisation announcement in making this assessment.
Release number
05/24
ACCC Infocentre
Contact us to report an issue or make an enquiry.
Media enquiries
Media Team – 1300 138 917, media@accc.gov.au
La CNMC informará sobre los códigos deontológicos de los colegios profesionales
26 Jan 2024 |Promoción de Competencia Nota de prensa
- El informe de la CNMC será preceptivo y no vinculante y se realizará tras la autoevaluación de los propios colegios profesionales.
- Los test de proporcionalidad que se aplicarán a los códigos deontológicos jugarán un papel relevante para evitar restricciones en la prestación de servicios.
La Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC) ha analizado el proyecto de real decreto (PRD) por el que se modifica la trasposición de la normativa sobre el test de proporcionalidad antes de adoptar nuevas regulaciones de profesiones (IPN/CNMC/037/23).
La Comisión Europea considera que el Real Decreto 472/2021 (que traspuso la Directiva (UE) 2018/958) no garantiza la objetividad e independencia de las evaluaciones de proporcionalidad de los códigos deontológicos de los colegios profesionales. La CNMC ya informó en su IPN/CNMC/001/21 (ver nota de prensa).
Por este motivo, el PRD propone que los colegios profesionales autoevalúen sus propuestas de códigos deontológicos y que, posteriormente, la CNMC informe sobre las propuestas. Este informe será preceptivo y no vinculante, y sus recomendaciones se regirán por el principio de “cumplir o explicar”.
Consideraciones
El test de proporcionalidad que se realizará para abordar la regulación de una profesión o la prestación de un servicio profesional jugará un papel relevante para evitar obstáculos injustificados en el ejercicio de la libre circulación de los trabajadores, la libertad de establecimiento o la libre prestación de servicios.
La CNMC valora positivamente la reforma pero plantea que:
- Autoridades competentes para la regulación. Los colegios no deberían ser considerados como autoridades competentes para la regulación, ya que no pueden elaborar ni aprobar la regulación propia de la profesión a la que representan.
- Función de evaluación de los colegios. Debería abarcar también a los códigos deontológicos ya aprobados, y no solo a las nuevas propuestas de modificación.
- Nuevas funciones para la CNMC. Será necesario dotar de los recursos necesarios a la CNMC para atender estas nuevas funciones.
Este informe se emite a solicitud del Ministerio de Asuntos Económicos y Transformación Digital, en ejercicio de las competencias que le atribuye el artículo 5.2 de la Ley 3/2013, de 4 de junio, de creación de la Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia.
Contenido relacionado:
- IPN/CNMC/037/23
- IPN/CNMC/001/21
- Nota de prensa (16/04/2021): La CNMC informa sobre la transposición de la normativa que modificará la regulación de los servicios profesionales
Documento no oficial destinado a los medios de comunicación y que no vincula a la CNMC. Reproducción permitida solo si se cita a la fuente.
Commission report finds active competition enforcement continues to contribute to affordable and innovative medicines
Page contents
The European Commission has published a report providing an overview of the enforcement of EU antitrust and merger rules by the Commission and the national competition authorities (‘NCAs’) in the pharmaceutical sector between 2018 and 2022. Today’s report shows that active enforcement of antitrust and merger rules continues to play an important role in delivering European patients’ access to a wider choice of affordable and innovative medicines. In particular, it helped to achieve this goal during the challenging period of the coronavirus pandemic.
The Commission drafted the report covering medicines and certain medical products in cooperation with the NCAs of the 27 EU Member States, with which the Commission works in the European Competition Network (‘ECN’). It follows a previous report covering the years 2009-2017 that was published in January 2019.
The authorities will continue their enforcement efforts in the pharmaceutical sector as a matter of high priority in view of its economic relevance and its impact on peoples’ well-being and lives.
Main findings of the report
Antitrust enforcement has contributed to fairer prices for medicines
With respect to anti-competitive agreements and cases of abuse of a dominant position, since 2018 the Commission and national competition authorities have:
- adopted 26 decisions against anti-competitive practices in the supply of medicines, by imposing fines totalling over €780 million or making legally binding commitments offered by companies to remedy their anti-competitive behaviour; and
- investigated more than 70 other cases, 40 of which were ultimately closed and 30 of which are currently ongoing.
The anti-competitive practices concerned harmed innovation and prices, and ranged from: (i) the misuse of the patent system and abusive litigation to prolong patent exclusivity; (ii) the disparagement of a competitor’s products to protect the dominant company’s sales; (iii) pay for-delay agreements, where originator and generic companies colluded to keep generics off the market and share the originator’s profits from doing so; and (iv) excessive prices charged for off-patent medicines.
Merger control has kept medicines’ prices lower and markets competitive
Higher prices, concentrated markets and reduced choice or research and development may also result from mergers between pharmaceutical companies. The Commission reviewed more than 30 mergers in the pharmaceutical sector and found concerns in five cases, where mergers could have led to price increases, patients and national health systems being deprived of some medicines, or a reduction in innovative efforts to develop new medicines. The Commission cleared four of these mergers only after the companies offered remedies to address the Commission’s concerns and preserve the existing degree of competition. One case was abandoned after the Commission raised initial competition concerns.
Proactive monitoring helped guiding market operators
The competition authorities undertook 60 market monitoring and advocacy activities that (i) offered insight into the functioning of the markets; (ii) informed a more pro-competitive design of regulation and legislation; and (iii) provided guidance to market participants, and even triggered antitrust investigations in certain individual cases.
The report also describes the guidance and coordination initiatives undertaken by the ECN to respond to the coronavirus pandemic, in particular the joint Statement on the application of the EU antitrust rules in the context of the coronavirus outbreak, which was issued by the ECN and the EFTA Surveillance Authority. Such statement was aimed at providing a common ECN response as to how EU competition law was to be applied during the crisis.
Background
Today’s report and executive summary are available in all official EU languages on the Commission’s competition website.
The report published today follows a previous report on competition enforcement in the pharmaceutical sector, covering the years 2009-2017 and published in January 2019.
For competition policy and its enforcement activities in the pharmaceutical sector to be effective, they need to take account of the particularities and the resulting competitive dynamics of this sector, such as the specific structure of demand and supply involving a variety of stakeholders and the comprehensive legislative and regulatory framework in the different Member States. On this last point, the European Commission adopted on 26 April 2023 a pharmaceutical package proposing to the Council and the European Parliament to revise the EU’s pharmaceutical legislation, based on preparatory work in the period since the adoption of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe in 2020. This proposed revision of the pharmaceutical legislation aims at making medicines more accessible (in all Member States), available (to address risks of shortages), and affordable (to national health systems and patients), while supporting competitiveness of the EU pharmaceutical industry, combatting antimicrobial resistance, and ensuring higher environmental standards of medicines.
The Commission and NCAs co-operate closely within the ECN. NCAs are fully empowered to apply Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). If a certain conduct does not affect cross-border trade, the national competition authorities apply their national antitrust laws, which are often a reflection of EU law. The Commission is entrusted with reviewing mergers with an EU dimension, i.e. where the merging companies’ turnovers meet the thresholds laid out in the EU Merger Regulation. If these thresholds are not met, a merger can be caught by national jurisdictions and reviewed by one or several NCAs.
Commission sends Statement of Objections to six companies in farmed Atlantic salmon cartel case
Page contents
The European Commission has informed Norwegian salmon producers Cermaq, Grieg Seafood, Bremnes, Lerøy, Mowi and SalMarof its preliminary view that they breached EU antitrust rules by colluding to distort competition in the market for spot sales of Norwegian farmed Atlantic salmon in the EU.
The Commission has concerns that, between 2011 and 2019, the six salmon producers, exchanged commercially sensitive information, relating to sales prices, available volumes, sales volumes, production volumes and production capacities, as well as other price-setting factors. The suspected aim of this alleged conduct was to reduce normal uncertainty in the market for spot sales of Norwegian farmed Atlantic salmon into the EU.
The alleged anticompetitive conduct only concerns sales on the spot market into the EU, as opposed to sales based on long-term contracts. Spot sales are those for which prices, volumes and other sales conditions are agreed per sale, based on the market conditions on the day of the sale.
Norway accounts for over half of the production of farmed Atlantic salmon worldwide and the EU is its main importer. The alleged conduct concerns sales of fresh, whole and gutted Atlantic salmon farmed in Norway, which accounts for nearly 80% of all farmed Atlantic salmon exported from Norway. The alleged conduct does not concern frozen farmed Atlantic salmon or processed products such as salmon fillets, loins, or smoked salmon.
If the Commission’s preliminary view is confirmed, this conduct would infringe Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), which prohibits cartels and other restrictive business practices.
The sending of a Statement of Objections does not prejudge the outcome of an investigation.
Background on procedure
Through information received from several market players, the Commission identified concerns in the market for spot sales of Norwegian farmed Atlantic salmon in the EU and it carried out inspections in February 2019 as part of a so-called ‘ex-officio’ investigation.
A Statement of Objections is a formal step in the Commission’s investigations into suspected violations of EU antitrust rules. The Commission informs the parties concerned in writing of the objections raised against them. The parties can then examine the documents in the Commission’s investigation file, reply in writing and request an oral hearing to present their views on the case before representatives of the Commission and national competition authorities.
If the Commission concludes, after the parties have exercised their rights of defence, that there is sufficient evidence of an infringement, it can adopt a decision prohibiting the conduct and imposing a fine of up to 10% of a company’s annual worldwide turnover.
There is no legal deadline for the Commission to complete antitrust inquiries into anticompetitive conduct. The duration of an antitrust investigation depends on a number of factors, including the complexity of the case, the extent to which the companies concerned cooperate with the Commission and the exercise of the rights of defence.
The Commission has carried out a series of major investigations into cartels in the agri-food sector. The Commission has already fined suppliers of bananas, exotic fruit, canned mushrooms, and canned vegetables.
For more information
More information will be made available under the case number AT.40606 in the public case register on the Commission’s competition website.
For more information on the Commission’s actions against cartels, including on how individuals or companies can report suspicious cartel behaviour see the Commission’s dedicated cartels website. A periodic compilation of antitrust and cartel news is available in the Competition Weekly News Summary and statistics on cartel enforcement.
Comissão Europeia
SUMITOMO / OSAKA GAS / I SQUARED / THINK GAS / AG&P CITY GAS
Merger
Last decision date: 25.01.2024 Super simplified procedure