Resolutions > Statistics

2004

2004 (preliminary data as of January 10, 2005)
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

30

7

9,9

165

1,8

-

abusive

22

6

8,5

95

1,1

-

restrictive

7

1

1,4

70

0,8

-

composite and other

1

0

0,0

0

0,0

-

Restrictive agreements

28

12

16,9

8515,5

94,6

0

horizontal

13

8

11,3

8493,5

94,4

0

vertical

8

1

1,4

0

0.0

0

composite and other

7

3

4,2

22

0,2

0

Concentration

65

2

2,8

-

-

4,8

horizontal

38

2

2,8

-

-

0,2

vertical

7

0

0.0

-

-

0

composite and other

20

0

0.0

-

-

4,6

Antitrust cases altogether [2]

123

21

29,6

8680,5

96,4

4,8

Consumer fraud

64

50

70,4

321,45

3,6

-

delusion of consumer

63

49

69,0

321,45

3,6

-

restricting the choice of onsumer

0

0

0,0

0

0.0

-

composite

1

1

1,4

0

0,0

-

All cases [3]

187

71

100.0

9001,95

100.0

4,8

% of cases

100,0

38,0

 

2. DETAILS

2.1. Unfair manipulation of consumers` choice
(preliminary data as of January 10, 2005)
 

Number of cases [4]

% of cases

Establishment of the infringement

47

73,0

Termination after suspension

3

4,8

GVH`s interventions

50

77,8

Other terminations

13

20,6

Other

1

1,6

Cases altogether

64

100.0

Fines imposed (M HUF)

321,45

 

Number of cases ended with imposition of fine

32

 
2.2. Abuse of dominant position
(preliminary data as of January 10, 2005)
 

Abusive [5]

Restrictive [6]

Composite and other [7]

Altogether [8]

%

Number of cases with EU interstate trade affected

Infringements

5

1

0

6

20,0

0

Termination of proceedings after suspension

1

0

0

1

3,3

0

GVH interventions altogether

6

1

0

7

523,3

0

Termination of proceedings (without suspension)

16

6

1

23

76,7

0

Other

0

0

0

0

0.0

0

Cases altogether

22

7

1

30

100.0

0

% of cases

73,3

23,3

3,3

100.0

Number of cases with EC-Hungarian trade involved

0

0

0

0

Fines imposed (Million HUF)

95

70

0

165

% of fines

57,6

42,4

0,0

100.0

Number of cases ended with imposition of fines

4

1

0

5

2.3. Restrictive agreements
(preliminary data as of January 10, 2005)
 

Horizontal [9]

Vertical [10]

Composite [11]

Altogether [12]

% of cases

Initiated ex officio

% of cases initiated ex officio

Number of cases with EU interstate trade affected

Illegal agreements

7

0

2

9

32,1

9

45,0

0

Termination of proceedings after suspension

0

1

0

1

3,6

1

5,0

0

Conditional approval

0

0

0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

Voluntary acceptance of the proposal of GVH

1

0

1

2

7,1

0

0.0

0

GVH interventions altogether

8

1

3

12

42,9

10

50,0

0

Individual exemption

1

1

3

10, 7

0,0

0

0.0

0

Exempted under a block exemption regulation [13]

0

0

0

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

Non prohibited agreement [14]

0

2

1

3

10,7

2

10,0

0

Non restrictive agreement [15]

4

3

2

9

32,1

7

35,0

0

Other kind of suspension

0

1

0

1

3,6

1

5,0

0

Cases altogether

13

8

7

28

100.0

20

100.0

0

% of cases

46,4

28,6

25,0

100.0

 

Not notificated

0

0

0

0

Withdrawal of group exemption

0

0

0

0

Initiated ex officio

11

6

3

20

% of cases initiated ex officio

55,0

33,0

15,0

100.0

Number of cases with EC-Hungarian trade involved

0

0

0

0

Fines imposed by GVH (M HUF)

8493,5

0

22

8515,5

% of fines due to GVH intervention

99,7

0.0

0,3

100,0

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

0

0

0

0

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

0

0

0

0

Number of cases ended with imposition of fines

7

0

1

8

2.4. Concentrations
(preliminary data as of January 10, 2005)
 

Horizontal [16]

Vertical [17]

Composite and other [18]

Altogether [19]

% of cases

Initiated ex officio

% of cases initiated ex officio

Prohibition

0

0

0

0

0,0

0

0.0

Conditional approval

0

0

0

0

0,0

0

0.0

Voluntary acceptance of the proposal of GVH

2

0

0

2

0.0

0

0.0

GVH intervention altogether

2

0

0

2

3,1

0

0.0

Other refusals

0

0

0

0

0.0

0

0.0

Approvals

33

6

20

59

90,8

2

0.0

Not subject to authorisation/ not concentration [20]

3

1

0

4

6,2

0

0.0

Other terminations of proceedings

0

0

0

0

0,0

0

0.0

Cases altogether

38

7

20

65

100.0

2

0.0

Decision in the first phase

32

7

19

58

 

Decisions in the second phase

6

0

1

7

% of cases

58,5

10,8

30,8

100.0

Not notificated

1

0

2

3

Initiated ex officio

0

0

2

2

% of cases initiated ex officio

0,0

0,0

100,0

100,0

Fines imposed for the lack of notification (Million HUF)

0,2

0

4,6

4,8

% of fines imposed for the lack of notification

14,2

0,0

95,8

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/proceedings done is actually 185, the187 value provided for in the table is inflated due to the fact that in two cases the proceeding covered two different matters. In Vj-73/2003 both the question of an abuse of dominant position and unfair manipuation of consumers` choice, in Vj-138/2003 both the question of an abuse of dominant position and restrictive agreement were raised (none of them resulted in a GVH intervention). These cases are enumerated in the unfair manipulation of consumers choice, abuse of dominant position and restrictive agreements rows, and are counted twice when mechanically added up. This is also the reason why the unbiased number of antitrust cases was not 123,, but 122.

  • The number of all decisions taken/proceedings done is actually 185, the187 value provided for in the table is inflated due to the fact that in two cases the proceeding covered two different matters. In Vj-73/2003 both the question of an abuse of dominant position and unfair manipuation of consumers` choice, in Vj-138/2003 both the question of an abuse of dominant position and restrictive agreement were raised (none of them resulted in a GVH intervention). These cases are enumerated in the unfair manipulation of consumers choice, abuse of dominant position and restrictive agreements rows, and are counted twice when mechanically added up. This is also the reason why the unbiased number of antitrust cases was not 123,, but 122.

  • 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.