The Competition Council lifted the veil, Thursday, May 8, on practices deemed seriously attacking freedom of trade in the supply of industrial sardine. A series of secret agreements, concluded between several operators, would have continued for twenty years in manifest contradiction with the fundamental principles of loyal competition.
An instruction based on the law and the general interest
Committed to the skills recognized by the Constitution, law n ° 20.13 relating to the competition council and law n ° 104.12 relating to freedom of prices and competition, the survey revealed concordant elements suggesting “The existence of anti -competitive agreements between a certain number of players in the industrial sardine market.”
These agreements, added the press release, had the purpose “to restrict entry into the market and to disrupt pricing training by free play of supply and demand, by making artificial prices.»
Coordinated and prolonged practices
The Council specifies that these agreements “Focused on the fixing of selling prices in the first hand, on the concerted distribution of production as well as on the organization of the distribution network.” In doing so, they would have “Prevented the emergence of any effective competition, hampered market access for new entrants and in the interests of consumers.”
The facts noted relate to three professional categories: maritime shipowners, industrial units for the processing and valuation of fish, as well as wholesalers in seafood occurring during the first sale.
Opening of a contradictory procedure
The report indicates that“An act of notification of the grievances has been sent to fifteen alleged professional entities involved, in accordance with article 29 of law n ° 104.12.” This mark “The triggering of the contradictory procedure, guaranteeing each party the full and whole exercise of its defense rights.”
The Council wishes to emphasize that this notification does not prejudge its final decision, which will be stopped after examining the file in session, in strict compliance with the rights of the parties.
Finally, the press release recalls that article 6 of the aforementioned law formally prohibited “Agreements, agreements or coalitions, express or tacit, the object or effect of which is to distort, restrict or prevent the game of competition on a market.” Such a ban work “Preserve the proper competitive functioning of markets and to protect the economic interests of consumers.”
