The 2025 St. Martin's Conference Addressed EU-wide Issues and Czech Competition Policy Tools

The conference was opened by a speech by Petr Mlsna, Chairman of the Office, who drew attention to the difficulties of the EU economy and its lagging behind, and called for the removal of excessive regulations. According to him, competition authorities should not be afraid to draw the attention of politicians to legislation that introduces excessive and unnecessary restrictions hindering business.

According to Chairman Mlsna, competition law must respond to developments in the economy, which is why the Office prepared an amendment to the Act on the Protection of Competition introducing several new tools, which, however, was not passed by the previous Chamber of Deputies. The Office therefore used the time gained to further refine the amendment, based partly on the responses and comments it received from experts, and will submit the improved draft amendment to the new government. The amendment should enable the Office to use a new competition tool to intervene in markets with dysfunctional competition, punish managers and company representatives for anticompetitive behavior, and call-in mergers for review that are not currently subject to the Office's clearance.

The Chairman announced that the Office is launching a sector inquiry to examine the mobile telecommunications sector, in particular pricing policy, bundling, and the impact of retention offers. (separate press release on the sector inquiry, in Czech language only). The launch of the sector inquiry is evidence of the close cooperation between the Office and the sector regulator, the Czech Telecommunications Office (ČTÚ). The Office successfully cooperates with other state institutions as well, such as law enforcement agencies. For example, Office staff participated in an operation carried out by the National Center for Combating Organized Crime (NCOZ) at the General Health Insurance Company and other entities. "The Office's good work is also confirmed by the fact that we have been awarded the organization of the International Competition Network (ICN) workshop on unilateral conduct, which will take place in April 2026 in Prague," announced Chairman Mlsna, referring to the upcoming prestigious international event. In his speech, he also mentioned the establishment of a chief economist team and the determination to continue prosecuting vertical agreements (the full opening speech by the Chairman is available here). 

PANEL I: What's new in competition law and policy?

Following the Chairman's speech, the first panel of the conference summarized the latest developments in competition law and policy from the perspective of national competition authorities and the European Commission. Kamil Nejezchleb, Vice-Chair of the Office, presented in detail the aforementioned planned amendment to the Competition Act, recalled the introduction of a whistleblowing tool, the establishment of a chief economist unit, and the execution of a total of four sector inquiries (non-alcoholic beverages, waste, charging stations for electric vehicles, telecommunications) and the conducted public consultation on the revision of the rules on concentrations between undertakings. As part of its decision-making activities, the Office examined 200 complaints and initiated five administrative proceedings, two of which concern abuse of dominance, two concern horizontal cartels, and one concerns vertical agreements. A total of eight on-site inspections were carried out. Sixty-two decisions on mergers were issued, of which two mergers were cleared with commitments. A sanction decision was issued on a railway procurement cartel with fines of over CZK 150 million, and a fine was also re-imposed on a meal voucher issuers' cartel. Vice- Chair Nejezchleb also discussed in detail the not yet final decision on commitments, which concluded proceedings on abuse of dominance with a job portal provider. He also mentioned the decision authorizing the Euromedia/Pemic merger in the book market, which imposed structural commitments and, for the first time in history, also used the institution of a trustee. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court's judgment overturning the inspection in the Tipsport case, as a result of which the Office had to terminate the proceedings, was bad news for the Office. "This was an inspection carried out seven years ago, and by today's standards, it would clearly have passed the court's review," said the Vice-Chair of the Office, who would like to see greater flexibility in inspections in the future and their partial transfer directly to the premises of the Office.

Juraj Beňa, Chairman of the Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic (PMÚ), spoke about plans to revise the notification criteria for mergers, which also include efforts to introduce a call-in model to prevent killer or roll-up acquisitions, for example. In connection with mergers, the methodology for calculating turnover has also been updated. The PMÚ also revised its prioritization policy and will regularly evaluate the impact of its decisions.

They recorded a similar number of mergers as last year. Following the objections of PMÚ, the applicant abandoned a transaction in the field of outdoor advertising. A penalty of almost EUR 500,000 was imposed for gun jumping in connection with a merger in the field of gambling. Penalties were also imposed for abuse of a dominant position in the operation of real estate sales portals, bus station operators, and landfill operators. A symbolic fine was also imposed for a professional organization's code of ethics, which prohibited the poaching of employees. Recently, the PMÚ also imposed fines for non-cooperation during inspections, for example for refusing to hand over a phone during an inspection and for not releasing data backups held by an internet provider. The Slovak authority also completed a sector inquiry focusing on food prices and territorial supply constraints.

Assimakis Komninos of White & Case Brussels reported on developments at the European Union level. According to him, the main events in the legislative area are the ongoing revision of the merger guidelines, the guidelines on Article 102 TFEU, and Regulation 1/2003, which governs cooperation between the European Commission and national competition authorities. From the cases dealt with by the European Commission or the Court of Justice of the EU, he highlighted the Illumina/Grail, Intel II, Android Auto, Apple/Spotify, and Facebook Marketplace cases. In his opinion, the Commission is clearly focusing on "big tech" cases and territorial supply constraints. Komninos, a former member of the Greek competition council, concluded by mentioning the growing political pressure on the decisions of the European Commission and national authorities and the excessive regulation that hinders the activities of technology companies and, as a result, causes Europe to lag behind.

Ana Sofia Rodrigues from the Portuguese Competition Authority spoke about a recent ruling by the Portuguese Constitutional Court, which declared unconstitutional a provision of the 2012 law allowing the competition authority to secure electronic communications during local inspections. According to the Constitutional Court, a court order is also required for this. A combination of law enforcement and awareness-raising activities has proven to be very effective, according to the Portuguese economist. The Portuguese authority runs several campaigns, which have resulted, among other things, in a large number of leniency applications. The Portuguese competition authority is also developing its own analytical tools to help it detect anticompetitive behavior. These include tools for detecting bid rigging, price agreements in e-commerce, and unnotified mergers.

PANEL II: Eco-system Competition

The speakers on the second panel focused on a current and increasingly debated topic: ecosystems in competition (especially in digital markets) and their impact on competition.

An academic introduction to the topic was provided by Prof. Giuseppe Colangelo from the University of Basilicata in Italy, who pointed out the absence of a legal definition of the term "ecosystem" in competition law. In his view, this is more of an academic issue, a concept borrowed from the field of strategic management, which, however, lacks clear outlines in legal analysis. He also questioned whether the economic framework for ecosystems is different from the one for multi-sided platforms. Traditional tools are effective and flexible. If the term "ecosystem" is not clearly defined, we risk deviating from traditional economic analyses. At this point, there is no clear analytical framework. Self-reference as a concept does not make economic sense.

Martin Machay, chief economist at the Office for the Protection of Competition, focused on the economic understanding of ecosystems. He emphasized that an ecosystem is a unique independent exchange system that satisfies complementary consumer needs. He pointed out typical monopolistic tendencies within and between ecosystems, which are clearly identifiable, and raised the question of their compatibility with the principles of competition. According to Machay, there is no need to introduce a definition of an ecosystem because economists are able to describe them. Economics does not need a definition, but competition law does. When we talk about ecosystems, we are talking about digital markets, which are evolving rapidly and are therefore difficult for competition authorities to investigate.

Tomáš Houška from the consulting company AlixPartners discussed whether the existing analytical tools of competition law are sufficient to solve problems related to ecosystems. According to him, we talk about ecosystems in digital markets where we lack tools. However, it is necessary to consider whether digital markets require a different approach. Airlines, car rental companies, taxi services, etc. operate in a similar way. According to him, an ecosystem is a market design. Houška also presented specific cases related to ecosystems, such as Booking/etravelli, Google Android, Google Shopping, Amazon/iRobot, Lufthansa/ITA, and Microsoft Teams.

Jan Dobrý from the law firm Clifford Chance focused on the legal framework and the application of Article 102 TFEU. He understands ecosystem as a shortcut for describing a complicated situation, the significance of which lies in creating a mental bookmark that reminds us that there are multiple levels of competition. Distortion of competition at one level cannot be justified by restricting competition at other levels. He supported his arguments with his experience of representing Google Android before the Court of Justice of the European Union: Google Android created barriers in the internet search market and defended itself by citing competitive pressure from Apple and the creation of other competitive opportunities. However, the court of first instance rejected this argument. It pointed to the high barriers to entry into digital ecosystems and the complex interactions between their elements. It emphasized that no hypothetical competitor could achieve a position comparable to that of a dominant company benefiting from network effects.

SPECIAL LECTURE: Competition Policy on the Edge?

Bogdan Chiritoiu, Chairman of the Romanian Competition Authority, reflected in a special conference lecture on whether competition policy is currently at a crossroads. According to him, Europe is in a difficult position, but this was also said 40 years ago, when Japan was at its peak. However, the situation is different today, as the era of free trade has come to an end, with Europe remaining its last advocate. The rise of China has made it impossible for the Western world to continue with free trade. All this is forcing us Europeans to make a change, which is new for our generation. The world is going back in time, to the era of individual economic blocks. This situation puts us in a difficult position, for example regarding merger control. In order to be able to compete on a global scale, we must allow the emergence of large national champions, but this will not be good for competition on a national scale. We should build pan-European markets, which require better coordination between the Commission and Member States. He also reflected on how to approach resilience, sustainability, security, industrial policy, and, in general, the balance between national and pan-European interests.

SPECIAL LECTURE: Revision of the European Commission's merger guidelines

In the next part of the conference, Terezie Ovečka from the European Commission's Directorate-General for Competition reported on the progress of the revision of the merger guidelines. The Commission has launched a review of both horizontal and vertical guidelines, as it is necessary to respond to changes that have taken place in the two decades since these guidelines were established. However, there will be no changes to the legal provisions contained in the Merger Regulation. The Commission held two public consultations this year, during which it collected nearly 250 responses from stakeholders. The most discussed topic is how to address the issue of merger efficiencies, which are difficult to take into account under the current guidelines. The Commission will hold two workshops on the revision in December 2025 and January 2026, followed by a conference on March 5, 2026, and then a public consultation on the draft new guidelines.

PANEL III: Standard of proof in light of/shadow of recent case law

The final panel of the first day dealt with the standard of proof in light of recent case law. Michal Petr from Palacký University in Olomouc discussed the standard of proof in vertical agreements, where the courts already stated in 2007 that a vertical agreement is a continuation of an offense. However, the current Act on administrative offences requires that all elements of the offense be proven for each individual partial attack. In this context, Michal Petr pointed out the danger that it is not realistically possible to prove all elements for all partial attacks, which is why significantly fewer attacks have appeared in the statements of decisions since then. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the Office sufficiently proves that a uniform interest was fulfilled in all cases. However, most of the decisions on RPM were subsequently issued in settlements, so we do not have confirmation as to whether they would have been upheld in court. The scholar from Olomouc then considered whether the Office could decide that RPM constitutes a continuing offense, or whether it would be possible to fully apply EU law and use its concept of "continuous conduct."

Marcela Káňová from the law firm Rowan Legal spoke about the assessment of prohibited agreements under Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 3(1) of the Competition Act, and the possibilities of applying the exception under Article 101(3) TFEU and Article 3(4) of the Competition Act. In reality, the Office only recognized the exception in the Médea case. She then used European Commission cases to demonstrate how the provisions are fulfilled and under what conditions the exception applies.

PANEL IV: Current development of unfair trading practices enforcement

The second day of the conference began with a panel on the topic of significant market power. Petr Solský, Vice-Chair of the Office, firstly summarized the decision-making practice in the Czech Republic. The Office is currently conducting nine administrative proceedings, and seven decisions imposing fines were issued last year. Vice-Chair Solský then provided information on the preparation of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cooperation among enforcement authorities responsible for the enforcement of Directive (EU) 2019/633 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain, which should regulate, for example, procedures for the exchange and gathering of information, enforcement measures, and the enforcement of sanctions. The European Parliament intervened in the preparation of the regulation with significant changes, but strong opposition arose against its proposal, and trialogues are now in progress to align the positions of all parties involved.

Barbara Jeannot from the German Federal Office for Agriculture and Food presented the way in which unfair trading practices are enforced in Germany. Only six employees deal with this issue. The UTP Directive is transposed by the Act on Agricultural Organizations and Commercial Chains. Turnover categories and a list of strictly prohibited practices are specifically regulated. They proceed according to criminal law, which is very burdening for the authority. This year, the German authority received only three complaints, initiated one proceeding, and issued two decisions. In addition, two decisions from previous years prohibiting the use of illegal practices were overturned by the court.

The Chairman of the Slovenian Competition Authority, Andrej Matvoz, outlined the development of regulations on significant market power and unfair trading practices in his country, where the first regulation was introduced in 2014, with a major amendment in 2019. The UTP Directive has been transposed since 2021, but the legislation is relatively difficult to apply. The Slovenian law contains a total of 27 prohibited practices, but in reality, only three can be proven, namely the absence of a written contract, late payments, and unbalanced terms. He also reported on specific cases in which sanctions were imposed on the SPAR and Lidl retail chains.

Daniel Janda from AK Volopich, Tomšíček & spol. explained the problems with applying the law in practice to the audience based on his experience as a lawyer. According to him, a major problem at the beginning was the lack of information about this legislation and the classification into turnover bands, followed by the habit of not concluding written contracts. He said that smaller suppliers often agree to illegal conditions to keep important customers. At the same time, they perceive the Significant Market Power Act as unnecessary red tape and cannot adapt to the new rules.

PARALLEL WORKSHOPS

Competition Advocacy or Sanctions – possibilities for cooperation with the Office in context of penalty amount

The workshop was led by Petr Hanák and Pavel Breinek (both from the Office). It focused on the use of leniency, settlement, or case conclusion without initiating formal proceedings. Representatives of the legal community, Ivana Halamová Dobíšková (Allen Overy Shearman Sterling) and Jan Kupčík (Schoenherr), enriched the workshop with a hypothetical case study (RPM in the apple sales sector) and opened the topic of the lower limit for fines. 

Commitments as an effective tool of competition policy

In this workshop, Martin Vitula and Jana Konopiská from the Office and Lenka Gachová Štiková and Richard Maliniak from law firms opened a discussion on the topic of commitment decisions. The discussion focused mainly on whether it would be more appropriate for the Office to make more frequent use of behavioral commitments, but according to Martin Vitula, this is not a practical solution in most cases, given the Office's limited resources. However, he promised to make more frequent use of market testing of commitments.

Services related to purchase or sale of agricultural and food products

This seminar discussed the legal limits of the current legislation on the provision of these services to customers. The seminar was led by Georg Kebrle, Director of the Significant Market Power Department. Other panelists included Jaromír Kloud from the Czech Meat Processors Association and Igor Pieš, a lawyer representing the Czech Trade and Tourism Association. In a lively discussion, participants addressed the benefits of these services for suppliers, how to estimate the costs of these services, and other related economic and legal issues. The debate focused primarily on logistics and marketing services.

Press Unit of the Office

25/205