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.
According to the decision of the Georgian National Competition Agency, the complaint of the "Asp-Group” was declared inadmissible. The case concerned the possible violation of Article 10 of the Law of Georgia on Competition. At the admissibility stage, the Agency found that the complaint did not meet the standards of material admissibility established by law and there was no relevant legal basis and reasonable suspicion of an alleged violation, the Agency declared the complaint inadmissible.
National Competition Agency recognized complaint of the “House of Decorations and Sculpture“” as inadmissible, regarding the possible violation of Articles 10 of the Law of Georgia on Competition by the by the Tbilisi City Hall. At the admissibility stage, determined that the Agency could not be the authorized body to discuss and resolve the dispute, as it concerns the implementation of specific norms of the agreement concluded between the parties based on their mutual will and it is not the action of the administrative body, which unjustifiably restricts competition between entrepreneurs by suspending the activities of any of them. The agency declared the complaint inadmissible and refused to initiate an investigation.
National Competition Agency recognized complaint of the JSC “Skoda Transportation” and JSC “Skoda Vagonka” as inadmissible, regarding the possible violation of Articles 10 of the Law of Georgia on Competition by the “Tbilisi Transport Company”. The Agency considers that Article 10 of the Law of Georgia on Competition does not apply to Tbilisi Transport Company, as the company is not an individual defined by this Article 10. However, according to the Agency, the assessment of the alleged procedural violation committed in a particular procurement process is not the competence of the Agency, and due to the lack of a legal basis provided by law, the complaint was declared inadmissible by the Agency.
National Competition Agency recognized complaint of the “Audit-Economics” as inadmissible. The case concerned the possible violation of Articles 10 of the Law of Georgia on Competition by the The Ministry of Finance and Economy of the Autonomous Republic of Adjara, Zugdidi Municipality, and Poti Municipality. As the complaint did not meet the legal standard of reasonable suspicion of the violation of the Law of Georgia on Competition, the Agency did not initiate an investigation.
