The Competition Tribunal ruled in favor of the National Economic Prosecutor’s Office, in a lawsuit against Asociación Gremial de Dueños de Mini Buses Agmital, sentencing the latter to pay a fine of 50 Annual Tributary Units (around US$ 45,000). This, because the defendant incurred in actions that are contrary to article 3 of Decree Law 211, that had the exclusion of a competitor from the market as an objective.
It was proved that in the defendant’s union, exclusive, lower tariffs for transportation services in similar schedules of those of an entrant were fixed, and said decision was taken as a reaction to the entrance of the new competitor. This, according to the Tribunal, was arbitrary price discrimination, adopted with the sole objective of eliminating the entrant from the market. It was also proved that the associates of Agmital harassed the entrant, with the evident purpose of reinforcing the exclusionary practices. Furthermore, the existence of a tariff agreement between Agmital and two other participants in the market was established. This agreement was encouraged by the regional transportation authority.
In its ruling, the Tribunal determined that, in situations where a union or a business association is used as an instrument for anticompetitive coordination, there is a particular collusive conduct, attributable to the collective entity.