The consent as a cause and consequent of the restrictive agreement

Abstract

The subject of analysis of this paper is validity of application of legal institute of compromise in various stages of administrative proceedings stemming out from infringement of competition. In domain of restrictive settlement it is analysed rate between relieving of obligation of payment of monetary amount for competition protection, partial or full, restrictive settlement participants, which make possible its finding out or its further trial (immunity-compromise) in one hand and compromise, which is concluded with the aim of its more successful final conclusion (compromise-settlement) in the other hand. It is known that domestic competition expresses different relationship regarding separate categories of compromise on the level of primary protection of effective competition. The law institute of breakage of proceedings due to compromise exists from the year 2013 and justifiably it has its upside path of the application. While competition protection stemming from restrictive understanding, already comprises a significant number of cases of immunity-compromises, legislature still does not recognize a possibility of a compromise in the course of administrative proceedings, by which sanction is decreased in order to achieve admission of taking part in unallowed agreement. If this form of settlement would be implemented in a domestic lawful frame, having in mind that harmful consequences of circumstances of its nonexistence are not significant, the order of its application needs to be gradual and restrictive.

Predmet istraživanja rada jeste osnovanost primene instituta nagodbe u različitim segmentima upravnog postupka zbog povrede konkurencije. U domenu restriktivnog sporazumevanja ispituje se odnos između oslobađanja od obaveze plaćanja novčanog iznosa mere zaštite konkurencije, potpunog ili delimičnog, učesnika restriktivnog sporazuma koji omogući njegovo otkrivanje ili dalje procesuiranje (imunitet-nagodba) sa jedne, i nagodbe koja se zaključuje u postupku u cilju njegovog efikasnijeg okončanja (nagodba-poravnanje), sa druge strane. Domaće pravo konkurencije iskazuje različit odnos prema pojedinim kategorijama nagodbe na nivou primarne zaštite efektivne konkurencije. Institut prekida postupka usled nagodbe postoji od 2013. godine i opravdano ima uzlaznu liniju primene. Dok praksa zaštite konkurencije od restriktivog sporazumevanja već sadrži značajan broj slučajeva imunitet-nagodbi, domaća legislativa još ne prepoznaje mogućnost nagodbe u toku postupka kojom se sankcija umanjuje zarad priznanja učešća u nedozvoljenom dogovoru. Ukoliko bi se ovaj vid poravnanja uveo u domaći zakonodavni okvir, s tim da štetne posledice okolnosti nepostojanja nisu značajne, režim njegove primene treba da bude postepen i restriktivan.