As the first quarter of the year comes to a close and more information becomes available, we can now reflect on the antitrust activities of the competition authorities in the region[1] throughout 2024.
In 2024, competition authorities across the region launched a significant number of new antitrust investigations, yet the number of cases closed remains relatively low.
Many of these investigations were initiated following sectoral inquiries, market complaints, and, in some instances, leniency applications filed by cartel participants themselves, highlighting both increased regulatory scrutiny and growing cooperation from within the industry. Dawn raids, coupled with the substantial use of digital forensic techniques, remain the primary tools employed by authorities to gather and verify evidence.
Although enforcement efforts spanned a wide range of industries and violations, competition authorities in Southeastern Europe – particularly in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia – appeared to concentrate their scrutiny on restrictive agreements in the retail, energy, and telecom sectors.
Please refer to the links below for country-specific information:
Competition authorities across the region remained active in 2024, tackling issues in a wide range of industries, including retail, telecommunications, construction, and utilities. Throughout the year, their efforts were primarily directed at opening new cases, signalling a proactive approach to addressing emerging competition concerns. This shift in focus towards investigating fresh cases, rather than concluding ongoing investigations, suggests that authorities are increasingly identifying potential anti-competitive practices across various sectors.
As these new investigations progress, enforcement actions, including fines, behavioural and structural measures, are anticipated to increase in the coming year. This heightened activity reflects a growing commitment to maintaining fair competition in the market and addressing anti-competitive behaviour more swiftly and decisively. Consequently, businesses operating in these jurisdictions may face more rigorous competition enforcement in the near future.
***
In 2024, the Albanian competition authority primarily focused on market monitoring and sector inquiries.
The Albanian authority initiated only one antitrust proceeding – against two companies linked through family ties – after the Public Procurement Agency flagged irregularities in a bidding process. However, the competition authority has yet to provide any public updates on the case.
Additionally, on the sanctions front, the competition authority imposed a fine after concluding an in-depth investigation into property management companies and internet service providers operating in residential buildings in the Albanian capital, Tirana. One property management company was found to have engaged in discriminatory pricing – charging higher fees to some providers while offering discounts to others – and restricting access to certain operators. The fine amounted to 6% of the company’s previous year’s local turnover, and in addition, the company was placed under a one-year monitoring period to ensure compliance with competition rules.
Furthermore, in 2024, the authority concluded a sector inquiry into Albania’s dairy sector without finding evidence of anti-competitive practices. The inquiry examined major dairy producers in the wholesale market for dairy by-products such as cheese and butter. Following the sector inquiry, the Albanian authority recommended stricter enforcement of food safety regulations, enhanced measures against market informality, and regulatory reforms to improve competition and price transparency in the dairy sector. No antitrust investigations were initiated as a result.
Following the conclusion of the sector inquiry into Albania’s dairy industry, the Albanian authority launched a sector inquiry into the wholesale fruit and vegetable markets across several regions in Albania after the market monitoring revealed significant price discrepancies at the production, wholesale, and retail levels. The sector inquiry is still ongoing.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, antitrust proceedings can be initiated ex officio or at the request of an interested party, resulting in numerous new cases each year, most of which conclude with no infringement found, yet keep the authority busy. In 2024, the competition authority has been particularly active in the utilities, telecoms, and construction sectors.
Most notably, the Bosnian authority focused on bid-rigging, closing two cases and imposing fines in the range between EUR 100,000 and EUR 150,000. In particular, one bid-rigging case involved companies manipulating tender processes for road construction projects, while the other concerned public procurement of computer equipment.
Additionally, the Bosnian authority continued to monitor merger control violations, imposing a EUR 25,000 fine for late filing (as Bosnia and Herzegovina has a 15-day filing deadline) on the market of the production and trade of vehicles and a EUR 230,000 fine to a local retail chain for gun jumping concerning their acquisition of a mall.
Croatia
The Croatian competition agency has remained active in 2024, balancing its focus between enforcing sector-specific regulations and continuing its efforts to address potential violations of Competition Law.
In 2024, the Croatian competition authority mostly focused on the enforcement of its Law on the Prohibition of Unfair Trading Practices in the Food Supply Chain, with less emphasis on the enforcement of Competition Law.
Nevertheless, in relation to Competition Law, the authority conducted three dawn raids targeting driving schools, sports centres, and land surveyors, suspected of engaging in restrictive agreements, including bid rigging.
Montenegro
Montenegro’s competition authority has initiated several investigations, including one concerning an alleged abuse of a dominant position in the market for shipping and delivery services at the Port of Bar. This case, which was initiated in February 2024, addresses potential anti-competitive behaviour in sea transport and remains ongoing.
Additionally, following an expedited investigation lasting approximately only seven months, the Montenegrin authority concluded that three major telecom operators in Montenegro agreed to set the price for a minimum prepaid mobile top-up. For comparison, the neighbouring Croatian competition authority opened proceedings regarding alleged collusion related to price adjustments against Croatian telecommunications companies and an industry association in 2023, with the investigation still ongoing.
The Montenegrin authority further concluded that this amounted to a prohibited restrictive agreement under Montenegrin Competition Law, asserting that the three telecom operators aligned their prices for prepaid mobile top-ups based on the same minimum top-up amount, despite a lack of concrete evidence of collusion or communication between them in relation to the price of top-ups. With this decision, the authority effectively set a low threshold for proving competition infringements in the Montenegrin market. The case is currently pending a second-level review before the competent court.
Furthermore, the Montenegrin authority closed a case involving concerted practices between two petrol companies related to the fixed retail pricing of liquid petroleum gas in Montenegro’s retail market.
As a reminder, the Montenegrin competition authority currently lacks the jurisdiction to directly impose fines for breaches of competition law, as this power remains with the Montenegrin courts. As a result, no fines will be issued in the telecom and petrol cases until court proceedings are concluded. However, changes to Montenegrin law are expected, which would grant the authority fining powers in future cases.
North Macedonia
For the Macedonian competition authority, 2024 has been a relatively quiet year. This is possibly due to the recent changes in leadership, including the appointment of new members and a new president of the authority. Despite the transition, the authority (which operates with two separate sectors focused on competition law misdemeanours and fines) has continued its work, confirming eight ongoing misdemeanour proceedings.
Additionally, the authority has concluded three significant cases involving gun-jumping, non-compliance with conditions of a conditionally approved concentration, and abuse of dominant position. However, there is no publicly available information regarding the specifics of these cases.
With the change in leadership, it is expected that the Macedonian competition authority will ramp up its antitrust activities in the coming year, addressing emerging challenges and strengthening enforcement in the market.
Serbia
In 2024, the Serbian competition authority was active across many industries, tackling different antitrust infringements.
The most prominent investigation centres on the market for fast-moving consumer goods, where proceedings were initiated against four large retail chains (that jointly account for 50% of the total retail market) following a sectoral inquiry. During several months of monitoring the price movements of 35 selected products, the Serbian competition authority determined that the prices for the observed products were identical across retail chains. The competition authority reasonably concluded that the lack of competitive pressure among the observed retailers likely resulted from a restrictive agreement under Article 10 of the Law. This was especially evident as there was no price competition between retailers due to identical regular and promotional prices.
This case has drawn significant media attention, and both the public and the press are closely monitoring the authority’s every step as the case is still ongoing.
Furthermore, the Serbian authority also initiated a couple of less prominent cases on restrictive agreements, such as the one related to an alleged import restriction of DIY tools and to potential bid-rigging in the wholesale market for the procurement of antivirus software.
Another notable investigation focuses on the wholesale market for tachographs, where a dominant player is under scrutiny for potential abuse of its market power. The investigation was triggered by a customer complaint, alleging that the company, controlling approximately 90–95% of the market, engaged in an abuse of its dominant position. The case is still ongoing.
In the area of gun-jumping investigations, the authority has opened two proceedings against a Serbian group of companies active in the agriculture sector, which allegedly implemented notifiable concentrations without prior approval from the authority. Both cases concern acquisitions of target companies located outside Serbia, in neighbouring Slovenia. These two cases represent a continuation of the authority’s practice of investigating foreign acquisitions and monitoring concentrations in neighbouring countries when Serbian merger filing thresholds are met.
On the sanctions front, the authority was less active, concluding only one case in 2024 (in a repeated proceeding). It imposed penalties on several companies involved in a bid-rigging cartel related to the procurement of technical equipment and services related to the printing machines. The total amount of fines imposed was approximately EUR 500,000, with the highest individual fine amounting to around EUR 230,000. Additionally, the company that was the first to report the cartel and apply for leniency was granted full immunity and received no fine.
Overall, the Serbian competition authority continued its practice of opening investigations after sectoral inquiries and market complaints. In this context, it should be noted that the authority has concluded a sectoral inquiry into the pellet sales market, during which it monitored supply disruptions, including shortages and regular price hikes.
Slovenia
In 2024, the Slovenian competition authority remained moderately active in enforcing antitrust rules, focusing on cartel enforcement and bid-rigging investigations in certain sectors.
A landmark cartel case in the automotive sector was concluded through settlements with companies involved in price-fixing. Specifically, four automotive companies reached settlements with the authority, each receiving a 20% reduction in fines. Following the reduction, the total fines exceeded EUR 1 million, while one company was granted full immunity after applying for leniency.
In addition, the authority carried out unannounced inspections at several companies suspected of collusion in public procurement for personal computers. These companies are under investigation for allegedly coordinating prices and bids, with the case still ongoing.
[1] Reference to “region” in this article covers the following jurisdictions: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, and Slovenia.
The information in this document does not constitute legal advice on any particular matter and is provided for general informational purposes only.
