The decision taken by the Antimonopoly Committee on the alleged restriction of competition in the electricity and coal markets in 2016 - HY1 2019 is groundless, unobjective and biased.
The Committee took a formalistic approach to the case, did not look into the market situation and pricing conditions, did not give the company an opportunity to fully express its position and ignored a number of important arguments. In addition, the Committee violated the procedural rights of the parties. Specifically, the case was reviewed based on materials that the company was denied access to, despite its request.
The case materials are a set of statistical data, and the conclusions made thereupon lack logic and causation.
The Antimonopoly Committee's conclusions contradict its own reports of 2016 and 2018, which examined the same period:
- Report of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine "Findings of a comprehensive study into the electricity and coal markets" dd. 01.Jun. 2016, URL: www.amc.gov.ua/amku/doccatalog/document?id=125980&schema=main
- Report of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine for 2018, approved by the Committee Resolution No. 2-rp dated 12 Mar. 2019, URL:
- https://amcu.gov.ua/storage/app/sites/1/Docs/zvity/2018/AMCU_2018.pdf
- In its decision, the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine accused both coal buyers and sellers of creating mutually similar prices for thermal coal, which is absurd by definition. The Committee's conclusions contradict each other and are illogical and biased.
- The company provided four expert review reports, which completely refuted the Committee's conclusions on a number of arguments, including the fact that the Committee's conclusions are not in line with the EU law. The expert review reports emphasised the biased, incomplete and groundless nature of the Antimonopoly Committee's conclusions.
- DTEK believes that the Antimonopoly Committee's investigation should have been based on the European principles and rules of transparency and legality. The Committee's approach contradicts not only its own methods used to determine the monopolistic (dominant) position, but also the relevant practice of the European Union.
- DTEK is convinced that the main purpose of the competition legislation is to promote the development of competition rather than put fiscal pressure on companies. DTEK will defend its rights and interests in court.