The complaint submitted by “Intellect Market “ LLC was considered inadmissible by the Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency. The complaint alleged a potential violation of Article 10 of the Law by the Prosecution Service of Georgia.
Following a detailed assessment conducted at the admissibility stage, the GCCA concluded that the complaint did not meet the material admissibility threshold as established by the applicable legal framework. Specifically, there was no reasonable indication of a breach of competition legislation. Consequently, the Agency found no grounds to initiate an investigation.
The complaint submitted by LLC “Skinest Rail Georgia” was considered inadmissible by the Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency. The complaint alleged a potential violation of Article 10 of the Law of Georgia on Competition (a possible restriction of free pricing and competition) by JSC “Georgian Railway.”
Following a preliminary assessment, the Agency concluded that the complaint did not meet the material admissibility threshold established by law. In particular, there was no reasonable suspicion of an infringement of competition legislation. Consequently, the Agency found no grounds to initiate an investigation.
The complaint submitted by “Duty Free Georgia” was considered inadmissible by the Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency(GCCA). The complaint alleged that the Government of Georgia, the National Agency of State Property and the Revenue Service had granted an undertaking an unfair advantage over competitors or potential competitors, including the transfer of state aid to the same economic agent under competition law. During the admissibility assessment, the agency concluded that the complaint did not meet the material admissibility standard set by law. Specifically, the actions in question were conducted in full accordance with Georgian legislation and fell under the exemption provided in Article 10 of the Law of Georgia on Competition. Consequently, the agency determined that there were no legal grounds to initiate an investigation.
The complaint submitted by “Techhabi” Ltd was considered inadmissible by the Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency. The complaint pertained to the definition of technical documentation requirements and tender conditions in the market research announced by the LEPL - State Procurement Agency, which allegedly favored a specific company. Upon review, the Agency determined at the admissibility stage that the complaint did not meet the material admissibility criteria outlined in the legislation. Specifically, there was no reasonable suspicion of a violation of Article 10 of the Law on Competition. Consequently, the Agency deemed it unnecessary to initiate an investigation.
The complaint submitted by "GT Group" Ltd was considered inadmissible by the Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency. The complaint was about the vague tender conditions used in one of the state procurements by the Rustavi City Hall, giving an advantage to an undertaking over competitors or potential competitors. According to the Agency’s decision, at the admissibility stage, it was determined that the complaint did not meet the standard of material admissibility established by the legislation. In particular, there was no reasonable suspicion of violation of Article 10 of the Competition Law. Therefore, the Agency considered it inappropriate to initiate an investigation.
The complaint submitted by "Geoprof" Ltd was considered inadmissible by the Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency. The complaint was about the vague tender conditions used in one of the state procurements by the Kutaisi City Hall. It also involved alleged facts of the complainant being disqualified without proper grounds by the procuring organization. According to the Agency’s decision, at the admissibility stage, it was determined that the complaint did not meet the standard of material admissibility established by the legislation. In particular, there was no reasonable suspicion of violation of Article 10 of the Competition Law. Therefore, the Agency considered it inappropriate to initiate an investigation.
The complaint submitted by "Denk Pharma Caucasus" LLC regarding an alleged violation of Article 10 of the Law of Georgia on Competition by the Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Labor, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia was considered inadmissible by the Agency. At the admissibility stage of the case, it was determined that the National Health Agency, not the Ministry, was the proper defendant. Furthermore, after mutual reconciliation of the information/evidence supplied, the Agency found that the complaint did not meet the material admissibility standard established by the legislation. In particular, the action conducted by the proper respondent was authorized under Georgian legislation, and the aforementioned situation was within the scope of the exception given by Article 10 of the La of Georgia on Competition. Accordingly, the Agency considered it inappropriate to start an investigation.
The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency considered inadmissible the complaint of the "Enso Group" LLC. The complaint was concerned the establishment such a benefit and and creating a dominant position for the undertaking, giving it an advantage over competitors or potential competitors, limiting free pricing and competition on the part of the Georgia’s Innovation&Technology Agency. According to the Agency’s decision, at the admissibility stage it was determined that there is no reasonable suspicion of a breach of the law, as there was no infringement of competition legislation in the circumstances described by the complainant. As a result, Agency considered it inappropriate to start an investigation.
National Competition Agency recognized complaint of the company “Retko” as inadmissible, regarding the possible violation of Articles 10 of the Law of Georgia on Competition by the "Georgian Railways", and regarding the alleged violation of Article 7 of the Law by "Kselmsheni", "Georgian Engineering Company" and "Khada". The complainant contested the 30-day delivery period in the tenders announced by "Georgian Railways". As a result of the analysis, it was determined that the purchasing organization conducted market research twice, within the framework of which at least 6 undertakings met the tender condition. Accordingly, the Agency considered that the complaint did not meet the material admissibility standards established by the legislation.
According to the decision of the Georgian National Competition Agency, the complaint of "Demaclenko IT S.R.L", regarding the possible violation of Article 10 of the Law of Georgia on Competition (Inadmissibility of distortion of competition by the state authorities) by "MTA" was declared inadmissible. As a result of studying the circumstances of the case, it was determined that the dispute between the same parties, on the same subject is ongoing in the Tbilisi City Court. According to the Law of Georgia on Competition, the Agency refuses to initiate an investigation based on a complaint, if the dispute is between the same parties on the same subject.
