Resolutions > Statistics

2002

Printable version of the document in PDF format.

2002.
GVH`S PROCEEDINGS ENDED WITH THE DECISION OF THE COMPETITION COUNCIL

1. OVERVIEW

 

Number of cases

Intervention of GVH [1]

% of cases

Fines imposed (Million HUF)

% of fines

Fines imposed for failed notifications (Million HUF)

Abuse of dominant position

36

15

23.4

218,5

50.1

-

abusive

16

7

10.9

17,5

4.0

-

restrictive

14

5

7.8

195

44.7

-

composite and other

6

3

4.7

6

1.4

-

Restrictive agreements

18

10

15.6

182,46

41.9

0

horizontal

11

6

9.4

122,46

28.1

0

vertical

6

3

4.7

60

13.8

0

composite and other

1

1

1.6

0

0.0

0

Concentration

65

3

4.7

-

-

8,192

horizontal

51

2

3.1

-

-

6,39

vertical

4

1

1.6

-

-

0,402

composite and other

10

0

0.0

-

-

1,4

Antitrust cases altogether

119 (!)

28 (!)

43.8

400,96

92.0

8,192

Consumer fraud

52

36

56.3

35

8.0

-

delusion of consumer

52

36

56.3

35

8.0

-

restricting the choice of onsumer

0

0

0,0

0

0.0

-

composite

0

0

0.0

0

0.0

-

All cases [2]

171 (!)

64 (!)

100.0

435,96

100.0

8,192

% of cases

100,0

37.4

 

Printable version of the document in PDF format.

2. DETAILS

2.1. Unfair manipulation of consumers` choice
 

Number of cases [3]

% of cases

Establishment of the infringement

31

59.6

Termination after suspension

5

9.6

GVH`s interventions

36

69.2

Other terminations

16

30.8

Other

0

0.0

Cases altogether

52

100.0

Fines imposed (Million HUF)

35

 

Number of cases ended with imposition of fine

17

 

Printable version of the document in PDF format.

2.2. Abuse of dominant position
 

Abusive [4]

Restrictive [5]

Composite and other [6]

Altogether [7]

%

Number of cases with EC-Hungarian trade involved

Infringements

4

5

3

12

33.3

0

Termination of proceedings after suspension

3

0

0

3

8.3

0

GVH interventions altogether

7

5

3

15

41.7

0

Termination of proceedings (without suspension)

9

8

3

20

55.6

0

Other

0

1

0

1

2.8

0

Cases altogether

16

14

6

36

100.0

0

% of cases

44.4

38.9

16.7

100.0

Number of cases with EC-Hungarian trade involved

0

0

0

0

Fines imposed (Million HUF)

17,5

195

6

218,5

% of fines

8.0

89.2

2.7

100.0

Fines related to the proceedings (1000 HUF)

0

0

0

0

Number of cases ended with imposition of fines

4

5

2

11

Printable version of the document in PDF format.

2.3. Restrictive agreements
 

Horizontal [8]

Vertical [9]

Composite [10]

Altogether [11]

% of cases

Initiated ex officio

% of cases initiated ex officio

Number of cases with EC-Hungarian trade involved

Illegal agreements

5

2

0

7

38.9

7

53.8

0

Termination of proceedings after suspension

1

0

0

1

5.6

1

7.7

0

Conditional approval

0

1

1

2

11.1

1

7.7

0

Voluntary acceptance of the proposal of GVH

0

0

0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

GVH interventions altogether

6

3

1

10

55.6

9

69.2

0

Individual exemption

1

0

0

1

5.6

0

0.0

0

Exempted under a block exemption regulation [12]

1

1

0

2

11.1

0

0.0

0

Non prohibited agreement [13]

1

0

0

1

5.6

0

0.0

0

Non restrictive agreement [14]

2

2

0

4

22.2

4

30.8

0

Other kind of suspension

0

0

0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

Cases altogether

11

6

1

18

100.0

13

100.0

0

% of cases

61,1

33,3

5.6

100.0

 

Not notificated

0

0

0

0

Withdrawal of group exemption

0

0

0

0

Initiated ex officio

8

5

0

13

% of cases initiated ex officio

61.5

38.5

0.0

100.0

Number of cases with EC-Hungarian trade involved

0

0

0

0

% of fines due to GVH intervention

67.1

32.9

0.0

100,0

Number of cases where fines were imposed due to GVH intervention

2

1

0

3

Fines imposed for the failure of the notification of the agreement (Million HUF)

0

0

0

0

Number of cases where fines were imposed due to failure of notification

0

0

0

0

Printable version of the document in PDF format.

2.4. Concentrations
 

Horizontal [15]

Vertical [16]

Composite and other [17]

Altogether [18]

% of cases

Initiated ex officio

% of cases initiated ex officio

Prohibition

0

0

0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Conditional approval

2

1

0

3

4.6

0

0.0

Voluntary acceptance of the proposal of GVH

0

0

0

0

0.0

0

0.0

GVH intervention altogether

2

1

0

3

4.6

0

0.0

Other refusals

1

0

0

1

1.5

0

0.0

Approvals

44

3

9

56

86.2

3

60.0

Not subject to authorisation/ not concentration [19]

2

0

1

3

4.6

1

20.0

Other terminations of proceedings

2

0

0

2

3.1

1

20.0

Cases altogether

51

4

10

65

100.0

5

100.0

Decision in the first phase [20]

42

3

10

55

 

Decisions in the second phase [21]

9

1

0

10

% of cases

78.5

6.2

15.4

100.0

Not notificated

7

1

3

11

Initiated ex officio

4

0

1

5

% of cases initiated ex officio

80.0

0.0

20.0

100.0

Fines imposed for the lack of notification (Million HUF)

6,39

0,402

1,4

8,192

% of fines imposed for the lack of notification

78.0

4.9

17.1

100.0


Footnotes
  • Depending on the type of the case, GVH (Office of Economic Competition) interventions might result in different types of decisions:
    - establishment of the infringement: applied in all types of cases (However the category of `failure to notify the concentration` is not included although these are also infringements of the Competition Act. This influences the overall number of infringements and fines.)
    - termination of proceedings after suspension: applied in all types of cases (except the concentrations)
    - refusal of the exemption: applied in the case of restrictive agreements
    - prohibited concentrations (refused notifications): applied in the case of concentrations and restrictive agreements
    - imposition of condition: applied in the case of restrictive agreements and concentrations
    - voluntary acceptance of the reflections of GVH: applied in the case of concentrations and restrictive agreements

  • (!) The number of all decisions taken is actually 169, the 171 value provided for in the table is inflated due to the fact that in two cases the decision involved two different infringements. Both in Vj-073/2001 and Vj-60/2002 the question of an abuse of dominant position and restrictive agreements were raised. These cases are both enumerated in the respective matter rows, and are counted twice when mechanically added up. Hence the unbiased number of antitrust cases were not 119 but 117, of which GVH intervened in 27 cases, giving the total number of interventions as of 63.
    Furthermore, it is worth noting that the statistics provided include only the decisions taken according to the Tpvt (1996 Competition Law), and do not involve the 2 decisions taken (as these cases were due to the intervention of the Supreme Court demanding new investigation) according to the predessor of Tpvt, the Vtv (1990 Competition Law). Both cases (Vj-47/2001 and Vj-53-2002) were initiated as an abuse of dominant position, and in the latter one 1 million HUF fine was imposed.

  • Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement.

  • Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement

  • Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement

  • Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement

  • Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement

  • Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement

  • Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement

  • Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement

  • Cases in which the decesions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement

  • Termination of proceedings by formal decision in cases initiated ex officio.

  • Termination of proceedings by formal decision in cases initiated ex officio.

  • Termination of proceedings by formal decision in cases initiated ex officio.

  • Cases in which the decisions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement

  • Cases in which the decisions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement

  • Cases in which the decisions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement

  • Cases in which the decisions were taken in more than one matter are represented in the table according to the most serious infringement

  • Termination of proceedings by formal decision in cases initiated ex officio.

  • Not all concentration cases are classified as being first or second phase. Such decomposition is not applied to cases closed due to the withdrawal of application, suspension of the investigation and cases not deemed constituting concentration of undertakings.

  • Not all concentration cases are classified as being first or second phase. Such decomposition is not applied to cases closed due to the withdrawal of application, suspension of the investigation and cases not deemed constituting concentration of undertakings.