The Georgian Competition and Consumer Agency has initiated an investigation into eight companies operating in the pharmaceutical sector for possible abuse of dominant position.
The case is related to imposing, directly or indirectly, unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions under Article 6 of the Law of Georgia on Competition.
The basis for the investigation is the information released by the Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Labor, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia on December 19, 2023, according to which 20 medicines (OFLAB-OZ, Ioril 10, Adazal Neo, Dozilax, Zinasen, Lornicus, Tribux Forte, Diovan, Haizin, Floxazol, Etricib, Ariprada, Pitavastatin Normon, Depreram, Erythromycin, Hydrocortisone, Admiral, Luteina, Biseptol, Treparin) were sold with high (300%-3000%) profit margin.
As part of a preliminary study on the case, the agency calculated the market share of 20 medicine importers in the relevant market from 2020-2023.
After reviewing the available information, it was found that 8 importing companies have a dominant position (exceeding 40% of the relevant market) in the case of 14 specific medicines.
1. Importer LLC "Global CBC", medicines - Oflab-oz, Ioril 10, Hyzin;
2. Importer "Concept Pharma" LLC, medicine - Floxazol (tablet);
3. Importer LLC Nuvea Pharmaceuticals, medicines - Adazal Neo (200 mg. N2), Adazal Neo, tablet, (400 mg. N1);
4. Importer LLC "Bardi", medicine - Ariprada;
5. Importer LLC "Rich Group", medicine - Zinasen N60;
6. Importer LLC "Crocus Pharma", medication - Lornicus ampoule N1;
7. Importer LLC "Gea", medicines - erythromycin, lutein, biseptol tab. 480 mg., biseptol tab. 120 mg.;
8. Importer LLC. BIH, medicine - Treparin.
As part of the investigation, the agency will assess the dominant position of the defendant companies and the high markup as an unfairly high price.
For information: In 2023, the Agency completed 8 investigations, where in 3 cases concerted practice was established. Among them, in the pharmaceutical market, in 2 cases restriction of competition by state administrative bodies, in 1 case the fact of unfair competition. In 1 case, the abuse of a dominant position was not confirmed, and in 1 case, the study was stopped at the request of the applicant in one case. At present, 2 investigations are ongoing - into the possible abuse of a dominant position and the possible fact of unfair competition.
