|
Decision 850/2024 |
||
|---|---|---|
| File (PDF) | Decision 850/2024 | |
| Date of Issuance of Decision | July 2nd 2024 | |
| Issue Number of Government Gazette | 272/ Β΄/31.01.2025 | |
| Relevant Market |
The case concerned the procurement of medical products (rapid tests) in the context of a relevant public tender, however, the precise market definition in this case is unnecessary. |
|
| Subject of the Decision | Decision on the ex officio investigation conducted by the HCC’s Directorate-General for Competition (DGC) to determine whether the conditions for application of the provisions of Article 1 of L. 3959/2011 on the “Protection of Free Competition” (Greek Competition Act), as in force, and Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) are met, in the context of the public tender launched by the National Central Health Procurement Authority (EKAPY) under the contract notice “Call for tenders for the urgent procurement of medical products for SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (rapid tests), with the most economically advantageous tender, solely on the basis of the price for the provision of the tendered products, being the award criterion and a total estimated value of 28,549,800.00 euros” (ESIDIS Registry No 145316), published on the 30rd of November 2021, regarding potential anticompetitive practices in the context of a horizontal or vertical agreement, following the Statement of Objections under ref no. 3089/21.05.2024 of the case-Rapporteur, I. Stefatos. | |
| Legal Framework |
Articles 1 of Law 3959/2011 and 101 TFEU |
|
|
Operative part of the Decision |
The Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC) decided, by majority and open vote, that the evidence in the case file does not show any infringement of Articles 1 of Law 3959/2011 or 101 TFEU by PROGNOSIS BIOTECH S.A. |
|
| Company(ies) concerned |
|
|
| Summary of Decision |
According to the grounds of the Decision, taking into account, on the one hand, that the undertakings concerned testified that they did not concert on the bid and, on the other hand, that PROGNOSIS put forward valid grounds (reduced production costs and experience of participating in other tenders of identical subject-matter), which may justify the amount of the bid at that time and, also, in particular, that: a) there is no evidence in the case file of any agreement, communication or cooperation between the three companies concerned and PROGNOSIS, b) the total procurement volume was cumulatively covered by the three companies INEX, VIOLAK and LAYNIOTIS without PROGNOSIS, c) the three companies referred to above have admitted their participation in a prohibited anti-competitive practice, d) in the event of equivalent bids, a draw would be conducted, while, moreover, the total procurement volume was already cumulatively covered by the three companies INEX, VIOLAK and LAYNIOTIS, e) the companies litigated in the context of this tender, f) PROGNOSIS did not become a subcontractor or supplier of the three contracting companies at a subsequent stage and did not participate in any tender with any of these three companies as a member of the same consortium, the HCC considers that bid similarity between PROGNOSIS and the other companies cannot in itself constitute evidence of any breach and that, therefore, in the absence of other evidence, no participation of PROGNOSIS in an infringement of Article 1 of Law 3959/2011 and/or Article 101 TFEU can be established. |
|
| Judicial Means | - | |
| Decisions by the Court of Appeal of Athens (Administrative Division) | - | |
