Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Estonia

  • Chapter
Antitrust in the Groceries Sector & Liability Issues in Relation to Corporate Social Responsibility

  • 562 Accesses

Abstract

Despite the fact that Estonia is a small market, competition in the grocery retail sector remains intense with no single undertaking enjoying dominant position. Although the concentration levels on the national level are substantial, there is a significant number of rivals present in different geographic areas. Due to the specifics of the market structures (including production, processing and retail), competition rules will remain an efficient tool of addressing increasing market concentration or possible anticompetitive practices in the grocery retail. Although the effectiveness of the criminal enforcement of competition rules in Estonia can be questioned, this would apply equally to all industry sectors where competition can be harmed by unilateral or collusive conduct of the undertakings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Miil K, Kuusik J and Ruttu M (2013) UPDATE: Guide to Estonian Legal System and Legal Research. http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/estonia1.htm. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  2. 2.

    See Sein K (2013) Private Enforcement of Competition Law – the Case of Estonia. Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies 6(8):129–139.

  3. 3.

    Thielert J and Schinkel M P (2003) Estonia’s competition policy: a critical evaluation towards EU accession. European Competition Law Review 24(4): 175, available at http://arno.unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid=463. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  4. 4.

    See, generally, Clark J (1999) Competition Law and Policy in the Baltic Countries – A Progress Report. OECD, Paris. See also Vedder H (2004) Spontaneous Harmonisation of National (Competition) Laws in the Wake of the Modernisation of EC Competition Law. Competition Law Review 1(1):5–21.

  5. 5.

    Põllumajandusministeerium, http://www.agri.ee/. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  6. 6.

    Ministry of Agriculture (2014) Food, agriculture, rural life, fisheries in facts, http://www.agri.ee/sites/default/files/content/valjaanded/2014/trykis-2014-faktiraamat-eng.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  7. 7.

    The Ministry of Agriculture reported that the number of agricultural holdings decreased by 36.7 %; however, the average area of agricultural land of the holding increased 1.8 times (from 21.6 ha to 38.9 ha). See http://www.agri.ee/agriculture-and-food/. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  8. 8.

    Eesti Põllumajandus-Kaubanduskoda, http://www.epkk.ee/. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  9. 9.

    Almost a third from it is formed by dairy products; 18 % meat products; 15 % bread, bakery and other products; and 9.5 % fish products. See http://www.agri.ee/agriculture-and-food/. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  10. 10.

    Eesti Toiduainetööstuse Liit, http://toiduliit.ee/. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  11. 11.

    Eesti Leivaliit, http://www.leivaliit.ee/. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  12. 12.

    Eesti Õlletootjate Liit, http://www.eestiolu.ee/. Accessed 22 May 2014. The Estonian Breweries Association brings together three major beer producers (AS Saku Õlletehase, AS A.Le.Coq and AS Viru Õlu). It has adopted its Code of Ethics with the aim to “facilitate, through the self-regulation of advertising communication, responsible actions of breweries by following common standards.” See http://www.eestiolu.ee/code-of-ethics-in-english/. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  13. 13.

    Eesti Juustuliit, http://www.juustuliit.ee/. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  14. 14.

    Kusmin K (2010) Grocery retail in Estonia – does the competition work? 2010 Competition Day, available at http://www.konkurentsiamet.ee/?id=20076. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  15. 15.

    Kaupmeeste Liit, http://www.kaupmeesteliit.ee/et/english-summary. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  16. 16.

    See Country Report (2013) Grocery Retailers in Estonia. http://www.euromonitor.com/grocery-retailers-in-estonia/report. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  17. 17.

    See Country Report (2013) Grocery Retailers in Estonia.

  18. 18.

    Competition Act, passed 6 May 2011, RT I 2001, 56, 332, entry into force 10 January 2011. See, generally, Thielert J and Schinkel M P (2003) Estonia’s competition policy: a critical evaluation towards EU accession. European Competition Law Review 24(4):165–175.

  19. 19.

    Competition Act, para 1(1).

  20. 20.

    Competition Act, para 2(1). On the notion of undertaking in Estonian competition law, see Rüütel R, Konkurentsikeeld võib viia vangimajja [Definition of undertaking in competition law] Eversheds (2 May 2014), available at http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?ArticleID=en/global/Estonia/en/definition-undertaking-competition-law. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  21. 21.

    Competition Act, para 2(2).

  22. 22.

    Competition Act, para 4(2).

  23. 23.

    Competition Act, Chapter 7.

  24. 24.

    Competition Act, Chapter 2.

  25. 25.

    See European Competition Network Brief (2013) The Estonian Parliament amends its competition act, 15 July 2013, e-Competitions Bulletin, N° 58777.

  26. 26.

    Competition Act, para 4(1)(4).

  27. 27.

    Competition Act, paras 16(5) and (6).

  28. 28.

    Competition Act, para 4(1)(1).

  29. 29.

    Competition Act, para 16.

  30. 30.

    See, generally, Proos A (2006) Chapter 17: Competition Policy in Estonia. In Katalin J. Cseres, Maarten Pieter Schinkel and Floris O.W. Vogelaar (eds), Criminalization of Competition Law Enforcement: Economic and Legal Implications for the EU Member States, Edward Elgar.

  31. 31.

    Prokuratuur, http://www.prokuratuur.ee/. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  32. 32.

    Konkurentsiamet, http://www.konkurentsiamet.ee/. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  33. 33.

    Penal Code, passed 6 June 2011, RT I 2001, 61, 364, entry into force 1 September 2002, para 399(1).

  34. 34.

    Penal Code, para 400.

  35. 35.

    Penal Code, para 402.

  36. 36.

    Code of Misdemeanour Procedure, passed 22 May 2002, RT1 I 2002, 50, 313, entry into force 1 September 2002.

  37. 37.

    Competition Act, Chapter 9.

  38. 38.

    Consumer Protection Act, passed 11 February 2004, RT I 2004, 13, 86, entry into force 15 April 2004.

  39. 39.

    Trading Act, passed 11 February 2004, RT I 2004, 12, 78, entry into force 15 April 2004.

  40. 40.

    Law of Obligations Act, passed 26 September 2001, RT I 2001, 81, 487, entry into force 1 July 2002.

  41. 41.

    Competition Act, para 5.

  42. 42.

    Competition Act, para 6.

  43. 43.

    Government of Republic Regulation No. 197 of 30 December 2010 “Grant of Permission to Enter into Specialisation Agreements Which Restrict or May Restrict Free Competition (group exceptions)” (RT I, 04.01.2011,11); Government of Republic Regulation No. 60 of 27 May 2010 “Grant of Permission to Enter into Vertical Agreements Which Restrict or May Restrict Free Competition (group exceptions)” (RT I 2010, 23, 112); Government of the Republic Regulation No. 66 of 3 June 2010 “Grant of Permission to Enter into Motor Vehicle Distribution and Servicing Agreements Which Restrict or May Restrict Competition (Block exemption)” (RT I 2010, 28, 149).

  44. 44.

    Competition Act, para 4.

  45. 45.

    Competition Act, para 5.

  46. 46.

    Competition Act, para 6.

  47. 47.

    Competition Act, para 7. See, for example, Government of Republic Regulation No. 60 of 27 May 2010 “Grant of Permission to Enter into Vertical Agreements Which Restrict or May Restrict Free Competition (group exceptions)" (RT I 2010, 23, 112).

  48. 48.

    Consumer Protection Act, passed 11 February 2004, RT I 2004, 13, 86, entry into force 15 April 2004.

  49. 49.

    Advertising Act, passed 12 March 2008, RT I 2008, 15, 108, entry into force 1 November 2008.

  50. 50.

    Advertising Act, para 4.

  51. 51.

    Advertising Act, para 8.

  52. 52.

    Advertising Act, para 28.

  53. 53.

    Alcohol Act, passed 19 December 2001, RT I 2002, 3, 7, entry into force 1 September 2002.

  54. 54.

    Trading Act, para 2(7).

  55. 55.

    Trading Act, para 4(1)(11).

  56. 56.

    Competition Act, para 61.

  57. 57.

    The ECA’s annual reports are available at http://www.konkurentsiamet.ee/?id=23901. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  58. 58.

    See http://www.konkurentsiamet.ee/?id=10461&op=archive. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  59. 59.

    Competition Act, para 51.

  60. 60.

    Competition Act, para 52.

  61. 61.

    Competition Act, para 53.

  62. 62.

    Law of Obligations Act, para 42.

  63. 63.

    See European Competition Network Brief (2010) The Estonian Parliament adopts a new legislation on leniency and sanctions, 27 February 2010, e-Competitions Bulletin, N° 33407.

  64. 64.

    Law Enforcement Act, passed 23 February 2011, RT I, 22.03.2011, 4, entry into force 1July 2014, paras 26-29., para 62(2).

  65. 65.

    Competition Act, para 571.

  66. 66.

    A fine unit is a base amount of a fine and is equal to four euros. Penal Code, para 47(1).

  67. 67.

    Competition Act, paras 731, 735 - 738.

  68. 68.

    Competition Act, para 781. See also Paas-Mohando K and Käis L (2013) Current Developments in Member States: Estonia. European Competition Journal 9(3):779–784; Favart M (2010), The Estonian Parliament introduces new leniency programme and harsher sanctions, 20 January 2010, e-Competitions Bulletin January 2010, N° 41652.

  69. 69.

    According to the media reports, Prisma (retailer) complained about Selver (retailer) and Tere (dairy products supplier) practices. See http://arileht.delfi.ee/news/uudised/piima-kuriteo-kahtlus-lasub-kahel-eestimaisel-ettevottel.d?id=51283464, http://arileht.delfi.ee/news/uudised/prokuratuur-kaivitas-voimaliku-piimakartelli-uurimiseks-kriminaalmenetluse.d?id=33540637. All accessed 22 May 2014.

  70. 70.

    See http://www.ohtuleht.ee/484324. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  71. 71.

    Eesti Tarbijateühistute Keskühistu, http://www.etk.ee/. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  72. 72.

    See http://www.ekspress.ee/news/paevauudised/majandus/etk-ulesehitus-meenutab-keelatud-kartelli.d?id=45762011, http://www.ekspress.ee/news/paevauudised/eestiuudised/konkurentsiamet-etk-ei-riku-seadust.d?id=46218769, http://www.delfi.ee/teemalehed/eesti-tarbijateuhistute-keskuhistu. All accessed 22 May 2014.

  73. 73.

    Competition Act, para 6.

  74. 74.

    Competition Act, para 5.

  75. 75.

    Competition Act, para 4.

  76. 76.

    Competition Act, paras 16(1)-(6).

  77. 77.

    Competition Act, para 16.

  78. 78.

    Riigikohus, http://www.riigikohus.ee/. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  79. 79.

    Judgment AS Eesti Post No. 3-1-1-64-07 dated 5 December 2007, para 8.1.

  80. 80.

    Judgment AS Eesti Post, para 4.1.

  81. 81.

    Competition Act, para 16(1).

  82. 82.

    Judgment AS Eesti Telefon No. 3-3-1-66-02 dated 18 December 2002.

  83. 83.

    Case 26/75, General Motors Continental N.V. v. Commission of the European Communities, ECR 1975 I-1367.

  84. 84.

    Judgment AS Eesti Telefon No. 3-3-1-66-02 dated 18 December 2002, para 15.

  85. 85.

    Case 27/76, United Brands Company and United Brands Continentaal B.V. v. Commission of the European Communities, ECR 1978 I-207.

  86. 86.

    Judgment AS Eesti Telefon No. 3-3-1-66-02 dated 18 December 2002, para 26.

  87. 87.

    Judgment AS Eesti Telefon, para 26.

  88. 88.

    See Tamm E (2007) Ebaõiglane hind. Turgu valitseva ettevõtja kohustuste analüüs konkurentsiseaduse rakenduspraktika alusel [Unfair Pricing. Analysis of the Obligations of an Undertaking in a Dominant Position, Based on the Implementation Experience of the Competition Act], Juridica, nr. 4, pp 263–273.

  89. 89.

    ECA Decision No. 5.1-5/11-020 dated 16 September 2011, available at http://www.konkurentsiamet.ee/public/Otsused/2011/o2011_20.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  90. 90.

    ECA 2011 Annual Report, p. 11, available at http://www.konkurentsiamet.ee/public/Aastaraamat/ANNUAL_REPORT_2011.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2014.

  91. 91.

    Judgment AS Eesti Telefon No. 3-3-1-66-02 dated 18 December 2002, para 28.

  92. 92.

    The general thresholds applied under the Estonian merger control regime are joint turnover of EUR 6,391,200 and individual turnover of EUR 1,917,350. Competition Act, para 21(1). See also Kalaus M (2002) Estonia: the new Competition Act introduces full merger control. European Competition Law Review 23(6):304–310.

  93. 93.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) OJ L 24, 2004, 1–22, Article 2(2).

  94. 94.

    Competition Act, para 22(3).

  95. 95.

    Guidelines for Submission of Notices of Concentration, Regulation No. 69 of the Minister of Economic Affairs and Communications of 17 July 2006 (RTL 2006, 59, 1062), entry into force 29 July 2006, para 8(2).

  96. 96.

    Competition Act, para 3(1).

  97. 97.

    Case 53-KO regarding concentration n° 29/2006, OÜ VP Market/OÜ Soldino, dated 1 December 2006. See Käis L (2006) The Estonian Competition Authority approves merger between two retailers on the basis of national merger regulation (VP Market and Soldino), 1 December 2006, e-Competitions Bulletin, N°21329.

  98. 98.

    European Commission, 25 January 2000, Case COMP/M.1684, Carrefour/Promodes and 3 February 1999, Case COMP/M.1221, Rewe/Meinl and 15 November 2004, Case IV/M.3464, Kesko/ICA/JV.

  99. 99.

    See Ginter C and Matjus M (2010) Assessment of nonhorizontal mergers in Estonia. European Competition Law Review 31(12):504–508. See also Kalmo H (2007) Definition of the Relevant Market in Merger Control: General Principles and Criticism of the Estonian Competition Board’s Practice. Juridica Abstract 10:715–726.

  100. 100.

    Guidelines for Submission of Notices of Concentration, Regulation No. 69 of the Minister of Economic Affairs and Communications of 17 July 2006 (RTL 2006, 59, 1062), entry into force 29 July 2006, para 8(2).

  101. 101.

    Case 48-KO Hansafood AS/AS Hüpermarket.

  102. 102.

    See Svetlicinii A and Lugenberg K (2012) Merger remedies in a small market economy: the Estonian experience. European Competition Law Review 33(10): 475–481. See also Paas K (2006) Non-structural Corrective Measures in Checking Concentrations. Juridica Abstract 5:340–349.

  103. 103.

    Competition Act, para 22(3).

  104. 104.

    Decision No. 3.1-8/08-020KO Terve Pere Apteek OÜ/Saku Apteek OÜ dated 8 May 2008.

  105. 105.

    See Kalaus T (2008) The Estonian Competition Authority issues its first merger prohibition taking into account both previous acquisitions and potential future acquisitions in the pharmacy services sector (Terve Pere Apteek/Saku Apteek), 8 May 2008, e-Competitions Bulletin, N°19964.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Macau, Taipa, Macao SAR (China)

    Alexandr Svetlicinii

Authors
  1. Alexandr Svetlicinii
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandr Svetlicinii .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. de Weck, Zoells & Kobel, Geneva, Switzerland

    Pierre Kobel

  2. Attorney-at-law, Geneva, Switzerland

    Pranvera Këllezi

  3. Addleshaw Goddard LLP, London, United Kingdom

    Bruce Kilpatrick

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Svetlicinii, A. (2015). Estonia. 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_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation