NENAJAVLJENI UVIĐAJ I (NE)SRAZMERA IZMEĐU OVLAŠĆENJA I OBAVEZA KOMISIJE ZA ZAŠTITU KONKURENCIJE
Sažetak
Ukoliko postoji osnovana sumnja da može doći do uklanjanja ili izmene dokaza o povredi prava konkurencije, Komisija za zaštitu konkurencije Republike Srbije (KZK) ovlašćena je da izvrši uviđaj u prostorijama učesnika na tržištu, bez prethodnog obaveštenja, bez sudskog naloga i bez efektivne ex post sudske kontrole. Takav uviđaj može da poremeti uobičajeno poslovanje učesnika na tržištu i umanji njegovu konkurentnost, što je u suprotnosti sa osnovnim ciljevima prava konkurencije. U radu se analiziraju izvori prava koji se odnose na nenajavljeni uviđaj u pravu konkurencije Evropske unije (EU) i u domaćem pravu, kao i praksa sprovođenja nenajavljenih uviđaja u državama članicama EU i u Srbiji. Na osnovu nalaza u radu, zaključak je da bi u Srbiji, između ostalog, trebalo usvojiti izmene i dopune Zakona o zaštiti konkurencije (ZZK), kao i odgovarajuću uredbu, čime bi bila bliže definisana ovlašćenja i obaveze KZK u vezi sa nenajavljenim uviđajem. Time bi se, kroz ujednačenu primenu prava konkurencije, umanjile razlike u postupanju KZK u istim i sličnim slučajevima, efikasno štitila konkurencija i umanjila pravna nesigurnost za učesnike na tržištu, koja je trenutno značajno veća u poređenju sa državama članicama EU.
Reference
Literatura
1. Autio, R., 2020, Explaining Dawn Raids: A Soft Law Perspective into European
Competition Authorities’ Explanatory Notes on Unannounced Inspections, Journal
of European Competition Law and Practice, Vol. 11(9), pp. 475−486.
2. Begović, B., 2015, Ekonomska analiza generalne prevencije, Beograd, Pravni fakultet
Univerziteta u Beogradu.
3. Nicolosi, C., 2016, No Fishing at Dawn (Raids)! Defining the Scope of the Commission’s
Inspection Power in Antitrust Proceedings, QM Law Journal, Vol. 8,
Special Conference Issue, pp. 54−56.
4. Neruda R., Roman B., 2015, Delta Pekarny v. Czech Republic: European Court of
Human Rights on Dawn Raids and Prior Judicial National Authorization, Journal
of European Competition Law & Practice, Vol. 6, Issue 6, pp. 411–413;
5. Petrikić, R., Radovanović R., 2010, Sprovođenje uviđaja prema novim propisima
o zaštiti konkurencije, Pravo i privreda, 10–12, str. 54–74.
Propisi
1. Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the Implementation
of the Rules on Competition Laid Down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, Official
Journal of the EC, 4. 1. 2003.
2. Directive (EU) 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of The Council of 11 December
2018 to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to
be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal
market, Official Journal of the European Union, L11/3, 2019.
3. Explanatory note on Commission inspection (ENCI) pursuant to Article 20(4) of
the Council Regulation, European Commission DG Competition, 1/2003.
4. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Official Journal of the EU,
C326/47.
5. Zakon o opštem upravnom postupku, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 18/16 i 95/18 – autentično
tumačenje.
6. Zakon o zaštiti konkurencije, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 51/09 i 95/13.
Sudska praksa
1. CJEU, case T-249/17, Casino, Guichard-Perrachon and Achats Marchandises Casino
SAS (AMC) v. Commission, 5 October 2020, ECLI:EU:T:2020:458.
2. CJEU, case T-254/17, Intermarché Casino Achats v. Commission, 5 October 2020,
ECLI:EU:T:2020:459.
3. CJEU, case T-255/17, Les Mousquetaires and ITM Enterprises v. Commission, 5
October 2020, ECLI:EU:T:2020:460.
4. CJEU, case C-693/20P, Intermarché Casino Achats v. Commission, case in progress.
5. CJEU, case C-583/13P, Deutsche Bahn and others v. European Commission, 18
June 2015, ECLI:EU:C:2015:404.
6. CJEU, case T-451/20, Facebook Ireland v. Commission, 29 October 2020,
ECLI:EU:T:2020:515.
7. ECHR, case Delta Pekárny A.S. v. Czech Republic, 2 October 2014, App. No 97/11.
Izvori sa interneta
1. Bock Matoković, C., 2018, The Delta Pekárny Case as a Leading Example of Ineffective
Protection in an Eastern European Member State? (https://www.schoenherr.
eu/content/the-delta-pekarny-case-as-a-leading-example-of-ineffective-protection-
in-an-eastern-european-member-state/).
2. Wytinck, P., 2018, Belgian Supreme Court Confirms Illegality of Dawn Raids due
to the Lack of a Warrant, (https://www.stibbe.com/en/news/2018/june/belgiansupreme-
court-confirms-illegality-of-dawn-raids-due-to-the-lack-of-a-warrant).
3. Urbańska, M., Sikora, K., 2019, Stricter Court Control of Dawn Raids Conducted
by the Competition Authority, (https://www.cms-lawnow.com/ealerts/2019/02/
stricter-court-control-of-dawn-raids-conducted-by-the-competition-authority).
4. Kułak, P., 2019, Constitutional Tribunal Finds Undertakings Have Right to Appeal
Against Consent to Conduct Searches, (https://www.schoenherr.eu/content/
constitutional-tribunal-finds-under takings-have-right-to-appeal-against-consent-
to-conduct-searches/).
5. Marek, M., 2019, Focus on Antitrust Dawn Raids in Europe, (https://www.dentons.
com/en/insights/articles/2019/september/19/focus-on-anti trust).
6. Ysewyn J., Nteve M., Ling V., 2021, Dawn Raids in the EU are Back in Full Swing,
(https://www.covcompetition.com/2021/12/dawn-raids-in-the-eu-are-back-infull-
swing/).
7. KZK, 2015, Vodič kroz prava i obaveze stranaka tokom nenajavljenog uviđaja,
(https://www.kzk.gov.rs/vodic-kroz-prava-i-obaveze-stranaka-to).
8. KZK, 2015, Guide to the Rights and Obligations of the Parties during Dawn
Raids, (https://www.kzk.gov.rs/en/vodic-kroz-prava-i-obaveze-stranaka-to).
9. KZK, 2021, Izveštaji o radu, (https://www.kzk.gov.rs/izvestaji).