The complaint submitted by LLC “E.P.J.” on 13 February 2025, was considered inadmissible by the Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency (GCCA). The complaint alleged a violation of subparagraphs "a" and "d" Paragraph 2 of Article 11(3), of the Law of Georgia on Competition by the respondent parties.Upon reviewing the admissibility of the complaint, the Agency determined that the complainant failed to meet the necessary standard of reasonable suspicion required to establish a potential violation under the burden of proof. Additionally, the complainant requested the Agency to impose a ban on the importation of “TYQ” brand shields by the respondents, a measure beyond the Agency’s authority and competence. As a result, in the absence of sufficient legal grounds to initiate an investigation, the Agency considered it inappropriate to initiate an investigation.
The complaint submitted by LLC "Argo" on January 24, 2025, was considered inadmissible by the Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency (GCCA). The complaint alleged a violation of subparagraphs "a" and "d" Paragraph 2 of Article 11(3), of the Law of Georgia on Competition by JSC "Georgian Beer Company" and Swinkels Family Brewers N.V. After reviewing the presented information and evidence, the Agency determined that the complaint did not meet the material admissibility criteria required by law. Specifically, the Agency concluded that there was no reasonable basis to suspect a violation of competition law, as the circumstances outlined by the complainant did not point to any breach. As a result, the Agency considered it inappropriate to initiate an investigation.
The complaint submitted by LLC "Euro Pak"was considered inadmissible by the Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency(GCCA). The complaint alleged a violation of Article 11(3) of the Law of Georgia on Competition by LLC "Kervan Ambalaj Matbaacılık Sanai ve Tijaret" (Georgia Representative Office) and LLC "Simetra". During the admissibility assessment, after reviewing and assessing the submitted information and evidence, the agency concluded that the complaint did not meet the material admissibility standard set by law. Specifically, the matter raised in the complaint fell outside the GCCA’s jurisdiction and authority, leaving no legal grounds for launching an investigation and the Agency considered it inappropriate to initiate an investigation.
The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency has deemed inadmissible a complaint submitted by Mikita Sokali (I/N 345655454) on October 17, 2024. The complaint alleged a violation of Article 11(3) of the Law of Georgia on Competition by LLC “Merkuri” (I/N 405311247). During the admissibility stage, the Agency compared the submitted information and evidence and determined that the complaint did not meet the material admissibility standards established by law. Specifically, the Agency concluded that the circumstances described by the complainant did not raise a reasonable suspicion of a competition law violation. As a result, the Agency decided not to initiate an investigation.
The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency made a decision of inadmissibility on the complaint of "Lolu Group". The case concerned an alleged violation of Article 113 of the Law of Georgia on Competition by the company “Nami 8”. At the admissibility stage of the case, it was determined that the complaint did not meet the material admissibility standard established by the legislation. The Agency determined that there was no reasonable doubt of law violation as there was no breach of competition legislation in the circumstances specified by the complainant. Therefore, the Agency considered it inappropriate to initiate an investigation.
The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency considered inadmissible the complaint of the "Metromart". The case concerned the abuse of a dominant position by "CBD Development". Furthermore, in the complaint, the complainant mentioned unfair competition. In addition, the complainant stated that, there is an anti-competition agreement between the "CBD Development" and "ABC-Telecom". 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.
The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency considered inadmissible the complaint of the "Delta Development Group". The case concerned the abuse of a dominant position by "Intellect Market" LLC and "GMG Center" LLC. Also, there is an anti-competition agreement between the same companies and a natural person, Artittaya Sirirat. Furthermore, in the complaint, the complainant mentioned unfair competition. 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.
The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency considered inadmissible the complaint of the “Suntrade”. The case concerned the abuse of a dominant position by "Bashkireti Soda Company", as well unfair competition (Articles 6 and 11³ of the Law of Georgia on Competition). . Furthermore, in the complaint, the complainant mentioned restrictive agreement (Article 7). 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.
The Georgian National Competition Agency recognized the complaint of "Bella Vetrine" LTD as inadmissible. The case concerned the alleged violation of Article 113 of the Law of Georgia on Competition by "Verona" LTD. In particular, misappropriation of the external appearance and damage to the reputation of the complainant company. According to the Agency's decision, it was established, that there was no reasonable suspicion of violation of the law during the admissibility stage since there was no evidence of competition law violation. Additionally, the complainant failed to provide additional information or evidence within the specified period as requested by the Agency. As a result, the National Competition Agency considered it inappropriate to initiate an investigation.
National Competition Agency recognized complaint of the Ind. Entrepreneur Yuri Kolpaki as inadmissible, regarding the possible violation of Articles 6 and 11³ of the Law of Georgia on Competition by "Redco Management Group". The complaint was concerned to the issue of providing specific utility services to the apartments located in the multi-functional complex in the village of Kaishauri, Dusheti district, near Mountain Vartsla. The claims named by the appellant in the complaint stemmed from the contractual relations, which is beyond the competence of the Agency. Accordingly, at the admissibility stage, the Agency determined that the complaint did not meet the material admissibility standards established by the legislation.
