Court gives PTK Competition Authority justice

On December 6th 2016, the Kosovar Competition Authority had made the decision that “all the agreements mentioned at the Point I conflict with the Law for the Protection of Competitiveness, Article 4 . .

Disgusted with this decision on March 15th of last year, Kosovo's Post with authorised plaintiff Ragip Hoxha by a motion-suited opposition to the Kosovo Competition Authority's decision of December 6th 2016, whereby it was decided that public institutions' agreements with Kosovo's Post for establishing filters within public objects are contrary to the competition law.

According to the Kosovo Post, the Kosovo Competition Authority's decision of December 6th 2016 has been issued with procedural violations, as a result of which material rights have been wrongly applied, as well as the release of this decision under the demand-suit exercised by Kosovo Posta has been made by a non-competent organ.

Based on these amendments to the plaintiff, the Kosovo Post was required to annul the Kosovo Competition Authority's 6 December 2016 decision, being considered illegal because, according to the plaintiff, such a decision has been issued in procedural violations and therefore with the wrong application of material right, as according to the plaintiff, the AKK indictee did not conduct transactions with the opposite verdicts, as provided the verdicts were issued by the PEC's rules, which the legal provisions under the law in terms of material enforcement do not violate co-operation, the indictments for having not carried out any transactions with various trade payments, but according to the CEC's agreement.

In addition to this requirement, the AKK reportedly has undergone a legal obligation during taking the controversial verdict, the AKK indictee has made substantial violations of the Law for the Protection of Competitiveness since, according to the plaintiff, the AKK has had a legal obligation to hand over the lawsuits that the same have begun procedures for investigating the case, which, according to this request, the AKK has denied the legal right to give comments and other evidence, and that this only developed to the MP and municipalities, but not to the PTK as a procedure.

To this request, answers to the indictment had been exercised AKK, which had proposed to the court that the plaintiff's indictment PTK was rejected as groundless.

To this requirement-suit, even interested parties such as “Moneta” had submitted to the main front review session Shrk, “Vlace Co”, “Propeid” sh.p.k, which the Court had proposed the suitable requirement PTK, to be refused as completely unfounded and to retain the AKK's controversial decision on December 6, 2016.

In the act of the Pristina Constitutional Court, provided by KALLXO.com, the Court is said to have assessed the legality of the verdict struck by indictment, as well as the evidence administered at the main review hearing, has concluded that the prosecution's application has found. PTK's is unfounded.

In reasoning of this act, the Court says, to assess the legality of the lawsuit - struck decision, has referred to the Convention for the Protection of Competition, which defines that “all agreements between two or more independent companies, decisions made between the associations of enterprises and co-ordinated practices that are aimed at or can evidently affect the trade competition disorder on the relevant market, and especially implement agreements that apply various conditions for the same transactions with other commercial companies, placing them in unfavourable situations<1>

In this bias provided by Calxo. The com reportedly also referred to Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, which stipulates that “The free competition market economy is the basis of the Republic of Kosovo's economic adjustment”, while with Article 119.3, it is determined that “VAptions restricting free competition through the establishment or abuse of dominant positions, or practices that limit competition, are prohibited, except when these are allowed by law”

According to this act, Kosovo Post agreements with the MPB, as well as with Pristina, Gjilan and Mitrovica municipalities are not based on any law, or applicable legal provisions, and have favoured the indictment, for offering payment service, not subjecting itself to competition procedures, with regard to these agreements, non-banking financial institutions, licensed by the BQ, for the same services, has placed them in a competitive uneven position, thus falling in opposition to the Law of Protection for the Protection of Kosovo, as well as the Constitution of the Republic.

The chairman of the Kosovo Competition Authority, Valon Prestreshi, has said that according to him, the entire judicial process has gone smoothly and that they will now wait until the court takes the form cut.

Meanwhile, Kosovo Post spokesman Arsim Mehmeti has confirmed that PTK the previous day has accepted the Constitutional Court Act but has not provided details whether they have so far exercised their right to complaint.