The Antimonopoly Committee being vested with new powers
The Antimonopoly Committee is assuming the shape of a law-enforcement body. Latest changes to the law allow committee members to enter unopposed the territory of any Ukrainian enterprise, inspect the premises, demand the information required, and even withdraw documents for purposes of investigation. In case of resistance, the antimonopoly people can seek help from police and the Security Service. Unlike the tax authorities, the committee members are not obliged to warn anybody about the coming inspection. “As we guard legally enshrined interests, we can be called a law-enforcement body from this standpoint,” says Oleksandr Melnychenko, deputy chairman of the Antimonopoly Committee, commenting on the enlarged powers of his office. In his view, this raised status will give the committee new impetus to fight for fair competition practices on strategic markets.
This situation also creates a risk that the Antimonopoly Committee might misuse its new powers. In theory, an inspection coupled with document withdrawal can be carried out at the request of a rival. Moreover, one should not rule out the likelihood of pressure being put on an enterprise for political reasons. Yet, this does not look like immediate risks. The current committee Chairman Oleksiy Kostusev showed an apolitical and neutral approach in several high-profile cases that dealt with rivalry between some large industrial-financial groups. His deputy, Oleksandr Melnychenko, thinks that in this case it is the question of confidence in the committee, a fact that everybody accepts. In his words, strategically important company information collected in the course of an inspection is not subject to disclosure or, more so, transfer to a third party. This information will be closely guarded.
Nevertheless, in special cases, the information gathered still can be made public. The new powers allow the Antimonopoly Committee to conduct so-called closed and open hearings. What can serve as the striking example of an open hearing is the case of an oil traders’ conspiracy in Dnipropetrovsk oblast. Journalists were furnished information on the number of the filling stations that belonged to the two firms accused of unfair practices, a well as on the structure of their management and marketing policy. Naturally, the gasoline traders themselves were not enraptured over this kind of publicity. The more so that Kyiv’s Economic Court acquitted them, and now the Antimonopoly Committee is attempting to win an appeal. If the committee loses the case, these two companies can file another lawsuit over their sullied business reputation. Despite this, Mr. Melnychenko said the committee intends to hold more open hearings even if the companies accused of unfair practices categorically oppose. “We don’t need the consent of such firms. They need not necessarily show up for an open hearing. This is their right,” Mr. Melnychenko says.
He admits that there still are no standard-setting instruments for the procedure of sudden inspections. The applicable law just contains a reference to “legislation in force.” But the latter does not yet exist. The Antimonopoly Committee has already drawn up a bill to this effect now under discussion in the cabinet. What can be the most radical innovation in this law is the committee’s right to inspect not only businesses but also individuals. In other words, antimonopoly operatives will be also able to conduct sudden searches in the apartments of suspects. This will draw the final picture of a new law-enforcement body. On the other hand, this tough approach may be just the thing we need in view of the recent price rises on the markets of gasoline and grain. All we have to do is wait for the new powers to be brought into play, especially on the mentioned markets, where monopolization is on an enormous scale in some regions.
