By its unanimous Decision no. 893/2025, adopted on November 4^th, 2025, the Hellenic Competition Commission (HCC), in Plenary sitting, accepted and made binding the commitments offered by the company under the name "PUBLIC RETAIL S.A." (PUBLIC) under the procedure laid down in Article 25C of Law 3959/2011, in order to address the competition concerns that had arisen in the course of the HCC’s preliminary assessment regarding a standard contractual resale price maintenance (RPM) clause in PUBLIC's contracts with its suppliers.

In particular, the HCC assessed the compatibility of the specific clause with Articles 1 of Law 3959/2011 and 101 TFEU in the markets for: a) the import/manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade of school bags, kids’ lunch bags and pencil cases, b) children's toys, except for those related to the use of computers and computer systems, and c) the import, wholesale and retail trade of large household electrical appliances.

The contractual term in question concerns resale price maintenance provided to PUBLIC by the supplier, indicatively through a credit note or discount, in the event it reduces its retail prices in response to any reduced prices by competitors – retailers of PUBLIC for the products it had purchased from the contracting supplier. According to the HCC’s preliminary assessment, the contractual term in question imposed by PUBLIC may constitute a means of pressure on its counterparty supplier to maintain the level of resale prices within its retail network, in order to avoid the financial burden/damage resulting from paying retroactive compensation to PUBLIC, especially if the clause is frequently applied. In addition, the clause creates a disincentive for the contracting supplier to offer lower prices to retail chains competing PUBLIC, as any such action triggers retroactive financial compensation, especially in cases where PUBLIC is an important customer. Hence, the term in question may lead to artificial price alignment among retailers, restrict the contracting supplier’s pricing freedom and prevent vigorous market competition.

In view of the above, PUBLIC, despite its denial of having committed any infringement of competition rules,  has stated that this clause has never been applied in practice and, in order to address the HCC’s competition concerns, it proposed its removal and undertook not to include it in future contracts. The content of the commitments is deemed sufficient to remove any competition concerns as the company expressly undertakes to immediately remove the contractual term that raises these concerns, which in any event does not appear to have been actually applied, as shown by the investigation.

The commitment Decision adopted by the HCC shall not be understood as a final infringement decision. In the event of non-compliance with the above commitments, the HCC may impose the fines provided for by law.