KJKP Rad fined 50,000 KM for arbitrarily charging waste disposal fees to a business entity

SARAJevo, (Patria) - The Competition Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina in April this year issued a decision fining KJKP Rad 50,000 KM for abusing its dominant position under Article 10, Paragraph (2), Point (d) of the Competition Law, which prevents, restricts, or distorts competition on the relevant market for the collection, removal, and disposal of household waste in the Sarajevo Canton, to the detriment of the business entity Penny Plus.

From 2016 to the present, KJKP Rad has failed to adopt a new Price List, which requires the consent of the Sarajevo Canton Government, and which would contain differentiated service prices for businesses, depending on the type of activity carried out in buildings and premises. This was an obligation under Article 57, Paragraphs (5) and (6) in conjunction with Paragraph (2) of the Sarajevo Canton Communal Cleanliness Law. In doing so, it conditioned the business entity "Penny Plus" d.o.o. Sarajevo to accept obligations that, by their nature or according to trade custom, have no connection with the subject of such an agreement.

As stated in the Decision of the Competition Council, KJKP Rad arbitrarily determined the amount of the service fee, which Penny returned with a complaint, requesting an explanation for the determination of the household waste removal service fee. The decision does not state the amount of the invoice issued to Penny as it is considered business secret.

KJKP "RAD" resent the same invoice again under threat of forced collection.

"The Competition Council determined that the business entity "RAD", by refusing to adopt a new Price List with the consent of the Sarajevo Canton Government, which would contain differentiated prices depending on the type of activity carried out in buildings and premises, an obligation it had under Article 57, Paragraphs (5) and (6) of the Communal Cleanliness Law, conditioned the business entity "Penny" to accept additional obligations that, by their nature or according to trade custom, have no connection with the subject of such an agreement, because it imposed on them the payment of a price intended for the group of craft and service activities, which includes watchmaking, hairdressing, shoemaking shops, and boutiques, while the activity for which the Applicant is registered was not even foreseen in the valid Price List from 1995. In this way, it abused its dominant position within the meaning of Article 10, Paragraph (2), Point (d) of the Law," the decision of the Competition Council states.