Abstract
In 2011, agricultural production contributed to the Hungarian GDP with 4.6 %. Agriculture employed 4.9 % of all employees, and its share in investments was 5.6 %. According to preliminary data, the contribution of the agricultural sector to the GDP decreased in 2012, but at the same time its share in the overall employment increased slightly. In Hungary, the agricultural sector is highly deconcentrated. More than 432,000 undertakings are active in agriculture, of which only about 3 % are companies, while the rest are individual farmers. Agricultural producers must register with the Hungarian Chamber of Agriculture from this year.
The author would like to thank Tunde Gonczol and Eszter Takacsi-Nagy (RÕczicza White & Case), Julianna Baki and ZoltÃn Hegymegi-Barakonyi (Baker & McKenzie), ZoltÃn Marosi and GÃbor Fejes (Oppenheim) and MÃrton Kocsis and MÃrk PÃnczÕl (Hungarian Competition Authority) for their valuable inputs. The content of this report does not represent the official position of the Hungarian Competition Authority.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Central Statistical Office, MezőgazdasÃg 2011, 2012, available at http://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/idoszaki/mezo/mezo11.pdf (accessed 27 August 2014).
- 2.
Central Statistical Office, A kedvezőtlen időjÃrÃs ellenÕre is szinten maradt a mezőgazdasÃgi kibocsÃtÃs ÕrtÕke, 2012, available at http://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/gyor/msz/msz212.pdf (accessed 27 August 2014).
- 3.
Such as the Hungarian Meat Industry Federation, the Hungarian Baker Association, the Sugar Industry Association, the Association of Hungarian Confectionary Manufacturers, the Association of Hungarian Producers of Frozen and canned Products, the Association of Manufactures of Soft and Fruit Drinks and Mineral Water, the Hungarian Mineral Water Association, the Association of Hungarian Grape and Wine Producers, the Association of Hungarian Alcohol Producers and the Association of Hungarian Beer Producers.
- 4.
Central Statistical Office, Decemberben 2,1 %-kal cskkent a kiskereskedelmi forgalom volumene, 2013, available at http://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/gyor/kis/kis21212.pdf (accessed 27 August 2014).
- 5.
Hypermarkets selling daily consumer goods, discounts and supermarket chains focusing on food products.
- 6.
This summary is based on data of market research companies Nielsen and GfK (for the latter, see http://www.gfk.com/hu/news-and-events/press-room/press-releases/Lapok/GfK-j%C3%B3l-alakulhat-az-%C3%A9v-v%C3%A9ge-a-napi-%C3%A9s-tart%C3%B3s-fogyaszt%C3%A1si-cikkek-kereskedelme-sz%C3%A1m%C3%A1ra.aspx – accessed 27 August 2014).
- 7.
Calculated with 313 HUF = 1 EUR (exchange rate on 26 August 2014).
- 8.
See http://www.gvh.hu//data/cms1024199/elemzesek_gvhtanulmanyok_beszallitok_2007.pdf (in Hungarian).
- 9.
- 10.
In 2008, however, the GVH conducted five investigations against retailer chains. In these cases, the GVH investigated the clauses of supplier contracts—applied by the retailers—under the Trade Act.
- 11.
The agricultural cartel exemption introduced in 2012 by the Parliament may be the sign of another approach.
- 12.
GVH, decision of 5 December 2012, case Vj-95/2012.
- 13.
GVH, decision of 14 December 2009, cases Vj-125/2009 and GVH, decision of 12 October 2010, case Vj-67/2010.
- 14.
GVH, decision of 5 December 2012, case Vj-95/2012 and decision of 18 December 2012, case Vj-59/2012.
- 15.
GVH, decision of 5 December 2012, case Vj-95/2012.
- 16.
GVH, decision of 12 October 2010, case Vj-67/2010 and GVH, decision of 11 July 2011, case Vj-92/2012.
- 17.
GVH, decision of 5 December 2012, case Vj-95/2012 GVH, decision of 31 January 2013, case Vj-53/2012.
- 18.
GVH, decision of 20 March 2013, cases Vj-8/2013 and GVH, decision of 13 March 2013, case Vj-106/2012.
- 19.
Nevertheless, the GVH stressed that even if a “local district” is examined it does not entail that the whole territory of this local district is concerned automatically. See GVH, decision of 5 December 2012, case Vj-95/2012 and decision of 18 December 2012, case Vj-59/2012.
- 20.
GVH, decision of 5 December 2012, case Vj-95/2012, GVH, decision of 12 February 2013, case Vj-100/2012, GVH decision of 22 March 2013, case Vj-13/2013 and GVH decision of 19 April 2013, case Vj-14/2013.
- 21.
- 22.
GVH, decision of 28 July 2008, case Vj-149/2007.
- 23.
GVH, decision of 28 July 2008, case Vj-149/2007. According to the GVH’s termination decision in the OBI case, in order to establish abuse under the Trade Act, it is necessary that the supplier does not receive any benefit from the economic results of the large-scale selling.
- 24.
GVH, decision of 28 June 2012, case Vj-47/2010. The infringement decision has been challenged by the retailer; the case is still pending before the court.
- 25.
It must be noted that in such decisions, the GVH does not establish the infringement of the law.
- 26.
GVH, decision of 2 September 2007, case Vj-92/2006.
- 27.
GVH, decision of 2 February 2009, case Vj-94/2008.
- 28.
GVH, decision of 2 September 2007, case Vj-92/2006.
- 29.
GVH, decision of 3 November 2008, case Vj-23/2008.
- 30.
GVH, decision of 3 November 2008, case Vj-23/2008.
- 31.
GVH, decision of 2 February 2009, case Vj-94/2008.
- 32.
GVH, decision of 2 February 2009, case Vj-94/2008.
- 33.
GVH, decision of 2 February 2009, case Vj-93/2008.
- 34.
GVH, decision of 2 February 2009, case Vj-91/2008.
- 35.
GVH, decision of 31 July 2009, case Vj-57/2007.
- 36.
GVH, decision of 29 March 2011, case Vj-69/2008.
- 37.
The second instance review court annulled the decision, taking into account the new legislative development described later at the section on Interbranch Organizations that effectively authorized certain cartels in the agricultural sector. This judgment is final but is subject to an extraordinary review by the supreme court, the Curia.
- 38.
GVH, decision of 7 January 2013, case Vj-50/2009.
- 39.
GVH, decision of 12 April 2013, case Vj-62/2012. See also T. Toth, The fall of agricultural cartel enforcement in Hungary, ECLR 2013 34:(7) pp. 359–366.
- 40.
This “last minute” decision is not final yet; it can be challenged before the Competition Council.
- 41.
This notice may have been warranted to avoid sanctions by the GVH due to misleading advertising.
- 42.
Interestingly, the EU Commission did not start a cartel investigation of its own. Rather, it challenged the Hungarian legislation in an infringement procedure.
- 43.
GVH, decision of 29 January 2007, case Vj-199/2005. There were occasions when farmers demonstrated loudly against the “unfairly” low prices of retail chains applied for milk products and various types of fruits. These attracted some media attention, but no lawsuits or formal investigations have been initiated.
- 44.
GVH, decision of 14 July 2005, case Vj-58/2005.
- 45.
GVH, decision of 7 January 2013, case Vj-26/2011.
- 46.
There is no statutory or judicial interpretation of such concepts.
- 47.
In Hungarian: Nemzeti èlelmiszerlÃnc-BiztonsÃgi Hivatal; hereinafter referred to as the “NèBIH.”
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Toth, T. (2015). Hungary. In: Kobel, P., Këllezi, P., Kilpatrick, B. (eds) Antitrust in the Groceries Sector & Liability Issues in Relation to Corporate Social Responsibility. LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45753-5_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45753-5_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-45752-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-45753-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)