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.
National Competition Agency recognized complaint of the "Med Pharmacy Group" as inadmissible, regarding the possible violation of Articles 6 and 11³ of the Law of Georgia on Competition by "Dr. Goods". The complaint was concerned with the damage to the reputation of the complaining company, its groundless criticism and discrediting by the director of "Dr. Goods". The Agency examined the matter at the admissibility stage and determined that there was no reasonable suspicion of a violation of the law, and the Agency considered it inadmissible to start an investigation.
National Competition Agency recognized complaint of the " Kazbegi 1881” as inadmissible, regarding the possible violation of Article 11³ of the Law of Georgia on Competition by the companies “Georgia Distribution and Logistics” and “Global Beer Georgia”. The complaint was concerned hanging an informational banner in front of the place of the complainant. At the admissibility stage of the complaint, the Agency determined that the complainant and the respondent are not competing undertakings. The Agency considered that there was no legal basis to initiate an investigation into the case.
The National Competition Agency recognized complaint of the Ind. Entrepreneur Viktor Surogin 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 Agency studied the issue at the admissibility stage and determined that there was no reasonable suspicion of violation of the law, because the complainant and the respondent are in contractual relations, and the claims named by the complainant was based on contractual relations, which are beyond the competence of the Agency. The Agency considered it inadmissible and refused to initiate an investigation.
The National Competition Agency recognized complaint of the Ind. Entrepreneur Nunu Kintsurashvili as inadmissible, regarding possible violations of Article 113 of the Law of Georgia on Competition by the Ind. Entrepreneur Maia Tsagareishvili. The issues raised in the complaint are beyond the competence of the National Competition Agency. Therefore, from the side of the complainant, the additional information requested by the Agency was not submitted within the period determined by the Agency. The Agency was refused to start the investigation.
