Website works in test mode - Old version
Hotline 15 20 Hotline 15 20 Hotline 15 20
Decisions based on investigation
Decisions on inadmissibility
TERMINATION OF INVESTIGATION
Contingent Liabilities
Dismissed Complaints
Intermediate and repeated sanctions
Case of online sale of cinema tickets
2023-12-29

The Georgian National Competition Agency has established a violation of Article 7 (Restrictive agreements ) of the Law of Georgia on Competition in the online cinema ticket sales market. According to the decision of the National Competition Agency, the complainant (E-Tickets LLC) and the defendants (Tineti LLC and the unified economic entity "Didstribution Company") were fined more than 1.6 million GEL for anti-competition agreement. However, JSC TBC Bank and TBC Bank Group PLC were not found in violation of Article 7, and violation was not established against "Distribution Company" LLC. The National Competition Agency issued three recommendations to relevant entities to improve the market for online sales of tickets for cultural, entertainment, creative, sports, leisure and tourism, educational, transport and other types of events/products/services.

View the document
The case of "MGL GEORGIA"
2023-08-29

The Georgian National Competition Agency completed the investigation based on the complaint of "MGL GEORGIA ". The case concerned the alleged violation of Articles 6 and Article 113 of the Law of Georgia on Competition by “GNS Georgia”. According to the received and processed information, the fact of violation of the law on the part of the respondent undertaking was not confirmed.

View the document
Case of "Delta Development Group"
2022-12-08

The Georgian National Competition Agency completed the investigation based on the complaint of "Delta Development Group", on the alleged violation of Articles 6 and 7 of the Law of Georgia on Competition by the companies operating in the field of translation and interpretation services. The investigation confirmed the violation of Article 7 of the Law of Georgia on Competition by the two respondent undertakings and one of the translator-interpreter. The undertakings were imposed the appropriate financial sanction and instructed to immediately eliminate the violation of the law. Also, a recommendation was issued to the undertakings for consideration.

View the document
Case of Georgian Insurance Group
2022-06-29

The National Competition Agency of Georgia has completed the investigation based on the complaint of the "Georgian Insurance Group", on the alleged violation of Articles 6 of the Law of Georgia on Competition by the "Geo Hospitals", and the "Risk Management and Insurance Company Global Benefits Georgia". As a result of the investigation, the fact of violation of the law was not confirmed. However, "Geo Hospitals" was instructed to consider the issue of providing family doctor services on Saturday, in case of an address from "Georgian Insurance Group". After reaching an agreement on commercial conditions, ensure the conclusion of a corresponding contract under equal and non-discriminatory conditions.

View the document
Case of “Geverse Development”
2020-03-02

Competition Agency of Georgia has completed the investigation based on the complaint of the “Geverse Development”.  The case concerned to the fact of compliance with the competition legislation of the action taken by the company "Outdoor.ge" in Tbilisi, on the right bank of the River Mtkvari, in the outdoor advertising permit service market. As a result of the investigation the violation of Article 6 of the law of competition of Georgia was established, which implies abuse of dominant position. The company was imposed a financial sanction under the law and in order to improve the competitive environment in the relevant market, appropriate recommendations have been issued.

View the document
Case of Poti Port
2017-04-21

14 terminal companies operating in Poti submitted a complaint to the Agency, regarding abuse of dominant position by the JSC “Poti Sea Port” - expressed in the introduction of a mandatory new combined tariff. As a result of the investigation, a new scheme introduced by the port was found as an abuse of dominant position, however, the new scheme has not been activated, and violation by the port was not established and no sanctions were imposed. 

View the document
Case of “Duty Free Georgia”
2016-03-28

Ltd “Duty Free Georgia” submitted a complaint to the Competition Agency, regarding the alleged violation of the abuse of dominant position by the “Tbilisi Tobacco“. Abuse was derived from the exclusive contract between the defendant and the complainant’s competitor company on the supply of products. As a result of the investigation the abuse of dominant position by the ‘Tbilisi Tobacco’ was not confirmed.


 

View the document
Case of Batumi Oil Terminal
2015-12-30

Competition Agency of Georgia on own its initiative started an investigation regarding the alleged violation of the abuse of dominant position of undertakings in the territory of the “Batumi Oil Terminal”, to ensure the compliance of the activities of Oil Terminals in Georgian Black Sea Ports with the Georgian competition legislation. As a result of the investigation, the violation of the law of Georgia on competition was not confirmed.


 

View the document
Case of “Georgian Trans Expedition”
2015-10-21

Ltd “Georgian Trans Expedition” submitted a complaint to the Competition Agency, regarding the alleged violation of the abuse of dominant position by the “Trans Caucasus Terminals”, which was the imposition of a combined tariff by the defendant (which does not actually include a forwarding service tariffs). The investigation did not confirm any violation by Trans Caucasus Terminal.

View the document
Case of “Globalagro”
2015-10-12

Georgian Wheat and Bakery Producers’ Association “Globalagro” submitted a statement to the Competition Agency, regarding the alleged violation of the abuse of dominant position by the Azerbaijani Company “Carat Holding”, which, according to the applicant's position, was expressed operating at an unfair price in the market by the holding. As a result of the investigation the abuse of dominant position by the defendant was not confirmed. 

View the document