The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency (GCCA) has adopted a decision of inadmissibility in respect of the complaint submitted by LLC "Megamsheni". The complaint concerned certain tender conditions established by the Khashuri Municipality City Hall, the Gurjaani Municipality City Hall, the Senaki Municipality City Hall, the Lagodekhi Municipality City Hall, the Terjola Municipality City Hall, and the Borjomi Municipality City Hall in tenders announced for the procurement of supervisory services for the construction of infrastructure facilities. In particular, the subject matter of procurement encompassed not only supervisory services for construction works, but also supervisory services for design and cost-estimate documentation; and bidders were required, in addition to the accreditation necessary for construction supervision, to hold further accreditation in various fields of inspection of design and cost-estimate documentation.
Having examined the matter at the admissibility stage, the GCCA established that the complaint did not meet the standard of material admissibility set out in the applicable legislation. In particular, there was no reasonable suspicion of an infringement of Article 10 of the Law of Georgia on Competition. On this basis, the Agency considers that there are insufficient grounds to initiate an investigation.
The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency (GCCA) has adopted a decision of inadmissibility concerning the complaint submitted by LLC "Megatest", The complaint concerned an alleged infringement, on the part of the respondent, LEPL Laboratory Research Center, of Article 6 and points (c) and (e) of Article 10 of the Law of Georgia on Competition. At the admissibility stage, the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof. Consequently, the GCCA established that the complaint does not meet the standard of material admissibility, there being neither a relevant legal basis nor a reasonable suspicion of the alleged infringement. In light of the foregoing, the GCCA did not consider it appropriate to initiate an inquiry.
The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency adopted a decision declaring inadmissible the complaint submitted by LLC “Multilinguist”. The complaint alleged infringements of Articles 6, 7, and 11³ of the Law of Georgia on Competition by the respondent undertakings LLC “Translate Hub”, LLC “TMN Group”, LLC “New Translation” and LLC “Wordspace”. Furthermore, the complainant referred to a potential violation of Article 10 of the Law by the respondent, the State Procurement Agency. During the admissibility assessment, the complainant failed to discharge the applicable burden of proof. Accordingly, the Agency concluded that the complaint does not meet the substantive admissibility threshold. In particular, the submission did not establish a sufficient legal basis or a reasonable suspicion of an infringement. On this basis, the Agency considers that there are insufficient grounds to initiate an investigation.
The complaint alleged a potential violation of Article 10 of the Law of Georgia on Competition by the LEPL Emergency Situations Coordination and Urgent Assistance Center, JSC T. Tsertsvadze Research Institute of Clinical Medicine (Infectious Pathology, AIDS and Clinical Immunology), and Rukhi Republican Hospital LLC.
During the admissibility assessment, the GCCA established that the complaint did not meet the material admissibility requirements prescribed by law. In particular, the Agency found no reasonable grounds to suspect an infringement of competition legislation. Consequently, the GCCA determined that initiating an investigation would be unjustified.
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.
