Download
1 / 23
230 likes | 234 Vues
POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE Andrés Pérez Orduz Advisor to the Superintendent of Industry and Commerce. POWERS OF THE SIC REGARDING COMPETITION PROTECTION. POWERS OF THE SIC. POWERS OF THE SIC. POWERS OF THE SIC. INSTRUMENTS
E N D
POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATEAndrés Pérez OrduzAdvisor to the Superintendent of Industry and Commerce
POWERS OF THE SIC INSTRUMENTS By virtue of Decree 2153 of 1992 and Law 1340 of 2009, the SIC has the following instruments for the purposes of carrying out investigations on restrictive trade practices:
POWERS OF THE SIC By virtue of Decree 2153 of 1992 and Law 1340 of 2009, the SIC has the following instruments for the purposes of carrying out investigations on restrictive trade practices (agreements, abuse of dominance, and other unilateral acts):
POWERS OF THE SIC SANCTIONS AMOUNT OF FINES FOR COMPETITION’S REGIME INFRINGEMENTS
POWERS OF THE SIC The Competition Protection Division initiates cartels’ investigations ex officiobased on information derived from a variety of sources, including:
CURRENT EX OFFICIO CASES Ex Officio Ex Officio Bycomplaint Bycomplaint
NULE GROUP’S CASE Members of the NULE GROUP engaged in bid rigging on two public tenders conducted by the Colombian Family Welfare Institute (ICBF) for the adjudication of contracts related to provision of food (Bienestarina) and household (Hogares) to children under the ICBF care. As result of the investigation, the SIC determined that the NULE GROUP participated in both tenders through several companies simulating competition between them, thereby increasing the chances of the Group of being granted the contracts, as indeed it happened. By Resolutions 54693 and 54695 of 2013, the SIC imposed fines up to a total of 51.000 monthly minimum wages (approx. USD$ 15 million) to several members of that economic group.
1. NULE GROUP’S CASE The SIC opened the NULE GROUP’S investigation based on news that were published by EL TIEMPO: “Another Nule’scontract with ICBF appears (...) TIEMPO.COM established that (..) they were given the technical and administrative supervision of the provision of children's breakfasts and emergency rations for group homes, children's homes, boarding schools and emergency centers (…). The contract was awarded to the consortium named “Supervisores Inter-ICBF-2007”, composed by the company “Ponce de León” and the firm “Hidrotec”, the same of the Bienestarina’s contract. (...). In both tenders the Nule Group presented more than one proposal. (...)”
PAVIGAS’ CASE During the pre-contractual stage of a public tender conducted by the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ROADS (INVÍAS), many similarities were identified in the offers that were submitted by PAVIGAS LTDA., GISAICO S.A., ESTYMA S.A., and the consortium “VÍAS NARIÑO 2500”. Because of that, INVÍAS declared the annulment of the bidding process, and decided to give notice of the irregularities to the General Attorney’s Office. Criminal proceedings could not succeed and were filed because the facts happened when Law 1474 of 2011 (Anti-Corruption Statute) had not been issued (that statute establishes criminal penalties for bid rigging practices). However, the General Attorney’s Office, based on the atypical coincidences that were identified, sent the case to the SIC.
1. IDU’S CASE This investigation started from a report called "monitoring committee to the district procurement“, which was published by the City Councel. Inits “mobility sector” chapter, the report said that the Institute of Urban Development (IDU) was developing road infrastructure works in three major fronts: (i) Transmileniophase, (ii) six districts of Bogota, and (iii) a phase of recovery work that was stablished in an administrative act. According to this report, the infrastructure works of those three fronts were awarded, in more than 60%, to five or six family or business groups, including the group of Mr. HÉCTOR JULIO GÓMEZ and EMILIO JOSÉ TAPIA. By Resolution 61497 of 2012, the Deputy Superintendence for the Protection of Competition opened a formal investigation for possible bid rigging practices in the mobility sector.
AUTO PARTS’ CASE By Resolution 61570 of 2012, the Deputy Superintendence for the Protection of Competition opened an investigation to determine if Japanese companies FURUKUWA ELECTRIC CO. LTD., DENSO CORPORATION, YAZAKI CORPORATION, LTD FUJIKURA., YAZAKI CIEMEL S.A., and YAZAKI CIEMEL FTZ LTDA, made agreements between them to fix the selling price of electrical kits, electrical wiring and electrical installations of motor vehicles. Those products were imported to Colombia by the referred entities. The administrative proceedings initiated ex officio, based on some news that made reference to the alleged existence of an international price cartel in the auto parts’ market. According to the news, the anti-competitive conduct had been recognized in plea agreements that such undertakings held with the Department of Justice of the United States.
