The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency (GCCA) has decided to dismissed the complaint submitted by „AQUA NRG INVESTMENTS LIMITED“ unexamined. During the preliminary review of the complaint’s formal admissibility, it was determined that it did not meet the legal requirements. The Agency granted the complainant a deadline to address the identified deficiencies, and a revised complaint was subsequently submitted. However, the resubmitted complaint failed to remedy the deficiencies previously identified by the Agency. Accordingly, the Agency decided to leave both complaints unexamined.The case concerned an alleged violation of Article 113 of the Law of Georgia on Competition by „Svit King +” LLC. Leaving the complaint unexamined does not affect the complainant’s right to submit a request to the GCCA to examine the same matter on the same grounds in the future.
The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency (GCCA) has decided to dismiss the complaint filed by LLC “Chveni” without consideration. During the preliminary assessment of the complaint’s formal admissibility, it was established that the complaint did not meet the legal requirements for submission. In order to address the identified deficiencies, the Agency granted the complainant an additional deadline, within which a revised complaint was submitted. However, the resubmitted complaint likewise failed to rectify the deficiencies determined by the Agency. Consequently, the Agency decided to leave both submissions without consideration. The case concerned an alleged infringement of Article 113 of the Law of Georgia On Competition by the respondent.
The dismissal does not preclude the complainant from resubmitting a request to the GCCA for review of the same issue on the same grounds.
The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency (GCCA) has decided to dismiss the complaint filed by citizen Beka Kobriashvili without consideration. During the formal admissibility review, the GCCA determined that the complaint did not meet the legal requirements for submission. The complainant was given a deadline to provide clarified information to address the deficiencies, but no revised complaint was submitted in accordance with the established procedure. Consequently, the Agency decided to dismiss the complaint without consideration. The complaint alleged potential violations of Articles 6, 7, and 11(3) of the Law of Georgia on Competition by LLC "Glovoapp Georgia" and LLC "Wolt Georgia".
The dismissal does not preclude the complainant from resubmitting a request to the GCCA for review of the same issue on the same grounds. In 2025, the GCCA issued decisions to dismiss seven complaints without consideration.
The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency has adopted a decision to leave the complaint submitted by LLC “Food and Wine” without consideration. At the stage of assessing the formal admissibility of the complaint, it was determined that the submission did not comply with the formal requirements established by applicable legislation. In order to rectify the identified deficiencies, the Agency granted the complainant a deadline. However, the revised complaint was not submitted within the prescribed timeframe and in accordance with the Agency’s procedures. Consequently, the decision was made to leave the complaint without consideration. The complaint concerned a possible infringement of Article 11³ of the Law of Georgia on Competition allegedly committed by LLC “Triphub”.
A decision to leave a complaint without consideration does not preclude the complainant from reapplying to the Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency on the same matter and grounds.
The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency (GCCA) has issued a decision to leave without consideration a second complaint filed against LLC “Online Mall”. Upon reviewing the formal admissibility of the complaint, it was found that the submission did not comply with the legal procedural requirements. The complainant was afforded an opportunity to address the identified deficiencies; however, the amended complaint was not submitted within the established timeframe or in accordance with the required procedures. As a result, the Agency rendered a decision to leave the complaint without consideration.This case concerned a potential violation of Article 113 of the Law of Georgia on Competition by LLC “Tsitelkuda XXI”.
A decision to leave a complaint without consideration does not preclude the complainant from reapplying to the Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency on the same matter and grounds.
The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency (GCCA) has issued a decision to leave without consideration a complaint filed against LLC “Online Mall”. During the assessment of the complaint’s formal admissibility, it was determined that the submission did not meet the procedural requirements established by law. Although the complainant was granted a deadline to correct the deficiencies, the revised complaint was not submitted to the Agency within the prescribed timeframe and in accordance with the established procedure. Consequently, the Agency decided to leave the complaint without consideration. The case concerned an alleged violation of Article 113 of the Law of Georgia on Competition by individual entrepreneur Nazi Zhorzholiani.
The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency dismissed a complaint submitted by LLC "Delta Development Group". During the preliminary assessment of the complaint’s formal admissibility, it was established that the submission failed to meet the formal requirements as prescribed by the applicable legislation. The Agency granted the complainant a deadline to address the identified deficiencies; however, the revised complaint was not submitted within the prescribed timeframe or in compliance with the applicable procedural requirements. Accordingly, the Agency resolved to leave the complaint without consideration. The complaint related to an alleged violation of subparagraphs (a) and (g) of Article 113, paragraph 2 of the Law of Georgia on Competition by LLC „Intellect Market”.
It should be noted that the decision to leave a complaint without consideration does not preclude the complainant’s right to resubmit the matter to the Agency for review, provided that it concerns the same subject and is based on the same grounds.
The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency dismissed a complaint submitted by LLC “Technocom”. During the preliminary assessment of the complaint’s formal admissibility, it was established that the submission failed to meet the formal requirements as prescribed by the applicable legislation. The Agency granted the complainant a deadline to address the identified deficiencies; however, the revised complaint was not submitted within the prescribed timeframe or in compliance with the applicable procedural requirements. Accordingly, the Agency resolved to leave the complaint without consideration. The complaint concerned alleged infringements by LLC “Smartly” of Articles 6 and 113 of the Law of Georgia on Competition, as well as a potential violation of Article 4 of the Law of Georgia on Competition.
It should be noted that the decision to leave a complaint without consideration does not preclude the complainant’s right to resubmit the matter to the Agency for review, provided that it concerns the same subject and is based on the same grounds.
The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency dismissed a complaint submitted by Individual Entrepreneur Tatia Gogadze – Touch Beauty (I/N 37001056302). During the preliminary review of the complaint’s formal admissibility, it was determined that the submission did not comply with the formal requirements prescribed by law. The Agency provided the complainant with a deadline to address the identified deficiencies. However, the revised complaint was not submitted within the specified timeframe or in accordance with the established procedural rules. Accordingly, the Agency issued a decision to leave the complaint without consideration.
It should be noted that the decision to leave a complaint without consideration does not preclude the complainant’s right to resubmit the matter to the Agency for review, provided that it concerns the same subject and is based on the same grounds.
The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency dismissed a complaint submitted by "Ska Group". In the complaint, the applicant pointed to the alleged unfair competition on the part of "Dro Health". The complainant took advantage of the right granted to him by the legislation of Georgia and he withdrew the complaint submitted to the Agency.
Dismissing a complaint does not deprive a person of the right to apply to the Georgian Competition and Consumer Protection Agency on the same subject matter, on the same basis, with the request to investigate the issue. Furthermore, dismissing the complaint does not waive the Agency's right to use the information provided prior to the statement's withdrawal to conduct an an investigation on its own initiative.
