Revizuirea Constituției și mediul de afaceri

Procesul de revizuire a Constituției României este în toi, cu ședințe prelungite ale comisiei parlamentare care redactează proiectul, cu dezbateri publice intense și replici tăioase între factorii de decizie din mediul administrativ și politic.

Nu se discută însă DELOC, în acest cadru, de prevederile din legea fundamentală a României cu impact asupra economiei. Constituția României prezintă particularitatea (nu orice constituție, chiar și din Uniunea Europeană, conține astfel de norme) de a conține prevederi exprese care se referă la 

- libertatea economică - art.45 

”Accesul liber al persoanei la o activitate economică, libera iniţiativă şi exercitarea acestora în condiţiile legii sunt garantate” și la 

- funcționarea economiei în regim de economie de piață - art.135

1) Economia României este economie de piaţă, bazată pe libera iniţiativă şi concurenţă.(2) Statul trebuie să asigure: a) libertatea comerţului, protecţia concurenţei loiale, crearea cadrului favorabil pentru valorificarea tuturor factorilor de producţie; b) protejarea intereselor naţionale în activitatea economică, financiară şi valutară;  c) stimularea cercetării ştiinţifice şi tehnologice naţionale, a artei şi protecţia dreptului de autor;  d) exploatarea resurselor naturale, în concordanţă cu interesul naţional;  e) refacerea şi ocrotirea mediului înconjurător, precum şi menţinerea echilibrului ecologic;  f) crearea condiţiilor necesare pentru creşterea calităţii vieţii;  g) aplicarea politicilor de dezvoltare regională în concordanţă cu obiectivele Uniunii Europene.

Dacă art.45 este destul de clar și nu necesită vreo actualizare, nu același lucru se poate spune și despre art.135.

Pe de o parte, acesta conține prevederi insuficiente atunci când se referă, în alineatul (2), litera a) doar la ”protecția concurenței loiale”, în condițiile în care există de fapt două seturi de reguli de concurență, complementare unele cu altele, dar fără a se confunda: normele de concurență loială (protejate prin prevederile speciale din Legea 11/1991, rămasă, la rândul său, în urma realităților economice, și prin prevederile din Codul Civil referitoare la răspunderea civilă delictuală) și normele de concurență de tip antitrust (protejate în principal prin Legea concurenței nr.21/1996, republicată, cu modificările și completările ulterioare și prin articolele 101-107 din Tratatul de Funcționare a Uniunii Europene, deci inclusiv normele care reglementează regimul ajutorului de stat).

Pe de altă parte, art.135, alineatul (2) circumscrie economia de piață unor deziderate care fie nu mai sunt de actualitate, fie sunt vagi și nu conferă vreo substanță acestor prevederi - ”interesul național” (de ce nu și ”interesul Uniunii Europene”, dacă România este membră a acesteia și parte componentă a Pieței Interne a UE ?), stimularea cercetării științifice, laolaltă cu stimularea artei (!?), referințe la activitatea valutară ca fiind distinctă de cea financiară etc.

Un singur paragraf - litera g) din alineatul (2) - se referă la ”obiectivele Uniunii Europene” , în ceea ce privește politicile de dezvoltare regională, în urma unei modificări operate odată cu precedenta revizuire a Constituției, din 2003 și luând, probabil, în considerare, fondurile pre-aderare care au mers în mare parte pe obiective de dezvoltare regională. Or, ca urmare a calității de Stat Membru al Uniunii Europene și de parte componentă a Pieței Interne, începând cu 2007, practic orice politică economică trebuie să aibă în vedere obiectivele Uniunii Europene, care sunt, practic, și ale României.

Este important de avut în vedere că articolele 101-107 din TFUE, amintite mai sus, sunt de directă aplicare în România și fac parte, de fapt, din ordinea juridică internă, conform art.148 din Constituție. 

Concluzia mea este că art.135, mai ales alineatul (2), trebuie reformulat, astfel încât accentul condițiilor de funcționare a economiei de piață să cadă pe două dimensiuni: obiectivele Uniunii Europene și competivitatea (eficiența) întreprinderilor din România. 

Reformularea ar putea fi următoarea:

”2) Statul garantează și promovează creșterea competivității economiei românești prin: 

a) exercitarea liberă și neîngrădită a activităților economice și respectarea regulilor de concurență, astfel încât să fie asigurată folosirea optimă a factorilor de producţie; 

b) absența oricăror bariere administrative, care nu sunt justificate de obiective de interes general, din calea exercitării libere a activităților de către întreprinderi..

c) stimularea cercetării ştiinţifice şi tehnologice şi protecţia inovației și a dreptului de autor; 

d) exploatarea resurselor de producție, în condiții de maximă eficiență economică și cu acordarea accesului nediscriminatoriu tuturor celor interesați; 

e) dezvoltarea economică în condițiile ocrotirii mediului înconjurător şi menţinerii echilibrului ecologic; 

f) crearea condiţiilor necesare pentru bunăstarea consumatorilor și creşterea calităţii vieţii; 

g) aplicarea politicilor economice, la nivel național sau regional, în concordanţă cu obiectivele Uniunii Europene.

De asemenea, ar fi utilă introducerea unui nou alineat la finalul art.135, care să întărească ideea de garantare a principiilor economiei de piață.

”(3) Sunt interzise orice măsuri administrative și dispoziții legale în măsură să afecteze competivitatea economiei românești și condițiile pentru asigurarea acesteia, menționate la alineatul (2).”

Competivitatea trebuie să fie obiectivul principal care trebuie urmărit și căruia toate celelalte obiective trebuie să îi fie subsumate. În acest sens, trebuie ca legea fundamentală să asigure, în principal, că nu există bariere și impedimente nejustificate în calea activităților economice, că există un acces nediscriminatoriu la resursele necesare activităților economice, să stimuleze cercetarea și să protejeze inovarea, în acord cu alte obiective, cum este protejarea mediului înconjurător de efectele nocive ale activităților economice.

Competivitatea, la rândul său, nu este un scop în sine, ci un element prin care este asigurată satisfacerea unor obiective majore, cum este asigurarea bunăstării cetățenilor României, prevăzut de art.47, alineat (1) din Constituție, conform căruia ” Statul este obligat să ia măsuri de dezvoltare economică şi de protecţie socială, de natură să asigure cetăţenilor un nivel de trai decent.” În egală măsură, existența unei economii puternice este un element important al asigurării securității naționale, această preocupare fiind regăsită în strategiile de securitate națională din ultimii ani.

Aceasta este propunerea mea. 

Dezbaterea este deschisă. Vi se par potrivite / necesare aceste modificări ?

UPDATE - The conclusions of the Romanian Competition Council in the market enquiry regarding the payments by card should be released this week

UPDATE - The report can be read at the internet address http://www.consiliulconcurentei.ro/uploads/docs/items/id8327/raport_privind_piata_serviciilor_de_plati_prin_carduri-neconfidential.pdf. (Romanian only, for the time being)
_________________________________________________________________________________

The Romanian Competition Council is expected to release this week the conclusions of a most awaited enquiry - that in respect of the market for payment services by card - having as prominent players VISA, MasterCard and the banks.  The enquiry has been launched in February 2011 and sought to clarify, mainly, a) how the commissions and fees for the issuance and acceptance of cards are set, b) the structure and the concentration of the payment cards systems and c) which are the rules adopted by the payment systems and the acquiring banks and their likely impact on the consumers and the traders.  Romania is not a leader but rather a follower in what looks as a very hot topic for the market players and the compettion authorities in Europe and elswhere.

In deed, the issues surrounding the payment systems managed by VISA and MasterCard are high on the agenda of the European Commission, with a focus on the Multilateral Interchange Fees (or "MIF"), which are the fees paid by the bank which issued the card to the bank through which payment is accepted (in principle, the bank of the merchant).  There are two problems in respect of the MIFs - the fact that they are set collectively by the members of VISA and MasterCard and their level, which was considered by the European Commission as being too high.  In a decision issued in 2007 and addressed to MasterCard the European Commission decided to prohibit, all together, the use of MIFs by MasterCard and the banks which are part of this payment system (the General Court upheld the Commission decision in May 2012).  In a similar investigation, VISA preferred to propose commitments and to make its MIF's cheaper and more transparent.  Some Member States decided to open separate investigations in respect of the MIFs applied in the domestic transactions and several resulted in finding of an infringement and in the application of fines.  

The most recent developments in this area include the opening of a new investigation regarding certain practices and rules of MasterCard, essentially in respect of payments made by cardholders from non Member Countries, in the European Economic Area or the "honor all cards" rule, and the acceptance by the European Commission of a new set of commitments made by VISA, which consist essentially in capping the MIF at 0,3% of the transaction.

Currently, the Commission is conducting a market study in 10 Member Countries (Romania is not included in the study), commissioned to Deloitte Consulting, in order to assess the costs of the merchants in processing payments by card or by cash. 

The competition issues surrounding the payment systems have a long history and although the investigations started over time by the European Commission paid off (the fees are today much lower than two decades ago, which brought effective benefits to the consumers as long as the number of the transactions increased considerably in this period), the saga does not seem to be over yet. The "hot potato" remains the interchange fees and it would be interesting to see what the Romanian Competition Council will say in this respect.  

A first opportunity to discuss the report of the Romanian Competition Council "whilst is hot" may be the conference Mediafax talks about Banking, which will take place this Thursday, 31 May 2013 at Radisson Blue.

Știrea anului în audiovizual - Orange Romania va intra pe piața retransmisiei de programe audiovizuale

Orange Romania a cerut CNA aprobarea sa retransmita programe de televiziune prin satelit - Media & Publicitate - HotNews.ro.

Aceasta va reprezenta una din cele mai importante mișcări în piața retransmisiei de programe audio-TV din ultimii 5 ani, de când Romtelecom a intrat puternic pe această piață, în principal prin tehnologia DTH (Direct-to-Home).  

Este interesantă intenția Orange de diversificare a serviciilor oferite în România prin intrarea pe o piață deja saturată, în condițiile în care cel târziu în iunie 2015 este de așteptat să intre în funcțiune și emisia digitală terestră a programelor radio-TV.  Orange va trebui să vină cu oferte atractive pentru consumatori, un exemplu în acest sens fiind oferirea de pachete de programe personalizate conform preferințelor fiecărui consumator, în locul sistemului predominant folosit de operatorii actuali - ”a la carte”.  În calitatea sa de furnizor de servicii de comunicații mobile, Orange va putea să ofere și servicii de tip ”multi-play” - telefonie, internet, televiziune.  Este posibil ca tocmai existența unei preferințe a consumatorilor români pentru pachete de servicii de tip  ”multi-play” să fi determinat includerea în gama de servicii oferite de Orange a distribuției de programe TV (Consiliul Concurenței a lansat în luna martie o investigație sectorială, de cunoaștere a pieței, cu privire la pachetele de servicii de tip ”multi-play”, încercând să determine dacă existența unor astfel de pachete de programe este determinantă pentru consumator și care este, deci, puterea de piață a operatorilor care oferă servicii de tip ”multi-play”). 
În orice caz, intrarea Orange va reprezenta, cel mai probabil, o provocare serioasă pentru liderii pieței de retransmisie a programelor audiovizuale - RCS&RDS, UPC și Romtelecom.

Retransmiterea de programe radio-TV prin intermediul platformelor de satelit - DTH - nu este supusă, în prezent, obligației de preluare a anumitor programe TV, prevăzută de art.82 din Legea audiovizualului - ”must-carry”.  Cu privire la această diferență de regim, Consiliul Concurenței a declanșat, la finalul anului 2012, o investigație privind posibila încălcare a art.9 din Legea concurenței de către Consiliul Național al Audiovizualului, prin crearea unui regim discriminatoriu, în favoarea operatorilor DTH, care sunt concurenți direcți ai rețelelor CATV, clasice.  

”There can be no liberty unless there is economic liberty.” - Margaret Thatcher

The Lady was, definitely, not for turning and although she is no longer with us, her life and leadership show the way ahead of the current crisis. She tought many lessons on economy, leadership and freedom, which countries fighting and tired of a crisis which does not seem to come to and end, would need.  Margaret Thatcher was not a genius, but a person with good sense and much determination, still rare qualities among leaders today.  She cured the sickness, not the effects - a state spending too much.  

You will see below an example of an extraordinary lucid and pragmatic thinking, from  Lady Thatcher, of course - a rational approach which would be still very much valid in the current economic crisis. The following paragraphs are from the self-biography - ”The Downing Street Years”, Harper Press, 2011:

”The <wets> (under this name, Lady Thatcher designated those wanted to do more compromises, n.a) arguments came in different ways of varying sophistication, though their central message was always the same: spend and borrow more. They used to argue that we need extra public spendingon employment and industrial schemes, over and above what we had planned and were effectively forced to spend simply because of the recession. But this did not escape from the fact that extra public spending - whatever it was spent on - had to come from somewhere. And 'somewhere' meant either taxes levied on private individuals and industry; or borrowing, pushing up interest rates; or printing money, setting off inflation. There ws also a feeling , which I equally knew I had to resist, that the refunds which I had secured from the European Community budget should be used to finance extra spending. But why should it be assumed that public spending was better than private spending?".

So, current leaders and other decision-making people should read more of the examples given by Margaret Thatcher - these are practical examples of success, not theories (!) - than paying so much attention to Mr.Roubini or any sophisticated analysts focusing either on the effects or a wrong medication for the crisis.  

The Romanian State against the market economy and the economic freedom

UPDATE 2
The Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Hoyt Yee, on 8 September 2014, in Bucharest: ”Using emergency government ordinances, which avoid the public consultation, creates uncertainity and scares-off the investors”. Mr.Hoyt gives, as an example, EGO 25/2013. 

UPDATE 1 
The President of Romania refused to enact and decided today, 16 July 2013, to send the bill aproving EGO 25/2013 back to the Parliament for further reconsideration. The main arguments invoked by the President refers to the same infringement of the economic freedom of the TV stations and of their clients and the breach of the principle of the free competition.

”The most terrifying words in the English language are: I am from the government and I am here to help.” - Ronald Reagan

Yesterday, 12 April 2013, when everybody was preparing for a sunny week-end, it eventually happened.  The attack by the all-mighty State on a set of purely private economic relations, announced at the end of November 2012, finally took place.  At the sunset, when nobody expected it, the public authority of the state, crossed the border separating it from the market economy and walk with its boots over the freedom to enter into a contract and to the principle of the free market itself. 

The assault was not done through any physical violence but on through an apparently benign publication of the Government Emergency Ordinance 25/10 April 2013 (GEO 25/2013) in the Official Gazette of Romania, which aims to regulate the sale of TV advertising space and practically forbids the wholesale of the advertising time on TV and the intermediation by the media agencies.  The Romanian Competition Council issued in December 2012 a negative opinion (aviz) regarding the prohibitions and restrictions imposed of the sale of TV advertising space and I commented on this blog, at the beginning of 2013 about the precedent proposal.  The regulation announced in November 2012 was, eventually, not published, and hence, did not come into force. I thought that the government understood that the problems in the advertising industry cannot and should not be solved in such a brutal way.  I admit now that I was over-optimistic and the publication of the GEO 25/2013 in the Official Gazette on Friday, 12 April 2013 abruptly ends my optimism.  

In line with the rules for an efficient attack, the adoption and publication of GEO 25/2013 came without a warning – nobody new and, although the text of the ordinance appears to be different from the one adopted (also quietly) in November 2012, there was no information that the draft of such a GEO was on the agenda of the government on its meeting on 10 April 2013 (the date of this ordinance).  But this is a “blitzkrieg” type attack, hence the “emergency” of the ordinance and the total lack of transparency. 

I cannot give any appreciation as to the nature and the extent of the problems which might affect currently the advertising industry and the relations between this industry and the broadcasters.  It is odd that the new regulations intend to set rules only for the TV (?!) advertising due to the fact that the televisions are indeed an important communication channel, but they are part of the larger advertising market.  What about radio or the written press ?
I generally belive that intermediaries, in any industry, are not a must and they should justify their role.  On the other hand, even if the problems of the industry would be true, the right solutions are not those envisaged by GEO 25/2013. In this context, it is about private business and private agreements, hence if the problems exist, these are also private and the state must abstain from doing anything more than creating the framework for solving the problems (through the justice system) or sanctioning the villains, if they exist.  Any interference from the state, except those mentioned, cannot be conceived in the context of a free market economy and this is a clear breach of the economic freedom.  Business people, unlike consumers, do not need protection and their private disputes cannot be settled through a direct state intervention. 
The state is only a referee in the game of the private interests and cannot decide to alter the rules of the game in favour of one of the players, neither can decide to stop the game.

I would like to summarize what is wrong with this GEO, in the form it has been published:

• TV stations are, virtually, forbidden to pay intermediaries for the sale of their advertising time to their clients, even if they want to do so and it is beneficial to them (!). (the GEO is not formally forbidding making use of intermediaries but the interdiction to make any payment for the activities they perform, will have a similar effect).
• The media buying agencies cannot act as wholesalers either, purchasing volumes of advertising minutes from the TV stations and, then, reselling them to final clients.  

The first affected by these provisions could be the purchasers of advertising space (manufacturers and distributors wanting to promote their products).  They will have to handle their TV campaigns on their own, by entering in direct commercial relations with each TV station and negotiating with every station.  The Romanian broadcasting market has a large number of TV stations, but with regard to the revenues obtained is dominated by a few large broadcasters, so that organizing a well-focused campaign will prove to be a difficult – and more costly. It must be taken into account that the producers/distributors prefer to spread their commercial messages through several TV stations and, in addition, to run the same campaign on other communication channels - internet, radio, outdoor billboards.  In economic terms, the transaction costs of the clients of the televisions will most likely increase.  In order to respond to this complexity, the clients might concentrate their campaigns on a few TV stations - the market leaders, which are a kind of "must have" for any significant campaign.  As a consequence, the revenues of the major TV stations will be even larger, on the expense of the majority of the (smaller) televisions.  In the eventuality of more and more campaign being directed towards the large TV stations, the negotiating power of the later will increase even further.  Of course, the purchasers of advertising space will be able to hire the services of an intermediary but this one will need, in its turn to go round and discuss with all the TV stations, for each of its clients, so, its tariffs will be higher than today.  In any of these scenarios, the purchasers of advertising space will be have higher costs than in the present and the difference costs will be either absorbed by the producers/distributors or, they will be (more likely) transferred to the consumers.  At the end of the day, a few large televisions shall be better-off, on the expense of the purchasers of advertising and of the consumers. 

Although GEO 25/2013 claims to want to protect the all the TV stations, the great majority of them will be affected.  The TV stations are all in direct competition and they all have the same advertising time available for sale, as this time is capped through regulations issued by the audio-visual regulator.  If an intermediary will no longer be used for promoting the sale of the advertising time most TV stations might be affected. They will have to handle directly a few hundreds significant corporate advertisers, with the increase in the transaction costs mentioned before. They will have to hire specialized staff and create special departments and, besides, these smaller TV stations would incur the risk of not selling their advertising space timely and at the best prices.  Eliminating the intermediaries might, thus, help the TV stations keep more of the advertising budgets for themselves but their cash-flow might suffer - and the cash-flow matters!  

What is wrong about the new legislation, is that up to know no TV station could be forced to use intermediaries and was always free to sell its advertising space either through intermediaries or directly.  Models to improve the transparency and the control over the money received from the clients, such as the "three parties agreement" used since 2011 by the largest broadcasting group – Pro TV could be voluntarily agreed by the market players.  So, where from came this need to intervene so brutally in the freedom of the business people and in the free functioning of the market ??  Why the legislator had to intervene so abruptly and prohibit a broadcaster to enter, by its own will and only if this corresponds to its commercial interest, into a sale-purchase agreement or an agency agreement with a media agency, for the sale of its product (the advertising time) ?  

In addition, it struck me that GEO 25/2013 does not provide any specific term for the entry into force of the new restrictions, meaning that these will have to be applied with immediate effect and the agreements previously signed and still in corse will also have to be terminated immediately, without any transition period, against the will of their signatories - manu militari.  Thus, in the absence of any transition norms, GEO 25/2013 may bring about another dangerous interference, with the binding force of an agreement - pacta sunt servanda - which represent the cornerstone of the civil law system.

The Romanian Constitution states, in article 45 that “The free access of a person to an economic activity, the free initiative and its exercise within the limits set forth by the law are guaranteed” – the limits mentioned here are those regarding the prohibition of cartels, abuses of dominance or the unfair competition.  Besides, according to article.135, para.1 of the Constitution “The economy of Romania is a market economy, based on the free initiative and competition”.

What remains of all these provisions and legal principles after such a legislative intervention ? 

Like democracy, the free market economy is not negotiable and the number of limitations and exceptions is strictly limited. Market economy cannot be modeled to take the shape and fit of any of the particular interests functioning inside it but it is supposed to provide a framework for the coexistence and the equilibrium of all the legitimate interests.  Moreover, democracy and the free market economy seem to be interconnected - there are a few exemples of countries with market economies but not a democratic political system but there is no example of a single democracy existing in the absence of a free market economy.

The most worrying thing regarding this issuance of such legal norms is that, once the Rubicon has been crossed, nobody should feel safe - the government may target, later on, other areas of the private business where tensions and disputes exist – and there are plenty of them.  At the end of the day, the very functioning of a free market economy in Romania may be jeopardized, so that the whole business community – and not just those affected directly by GEO 25/2013 – should pay attention and have a firm stance against such regulations. 

The care is necessary since GEO 25/2013 is not the only measure adopted by the government in the recent period, which enters into an open conflict with the principles of the free market economy, to the benefit of few and, most likely, to the detriment of most – see the case of the Government Decision commented here (Romanian only), adopted a week before, on 3 April 2013, which protects only some selected, state-owned (!), energy producers by guaranteeing them access to the power grid, in fact a way to guarantee them a minimum volume of sales. 

The promoters of GEO 25/2013 should have learned from the exemple of the Law 321/2009, better known in the market as the "Code of good practices between the producers and retailers of food products".  The law, a result of the efforts of the producers of foodstuff products to alleviate their problems, in the face of the growing negotiating power of the large supermarkets chains, imposed, among other things, maximum payment terms for the products sold to the retailers, ranging from 12 to maximum 35 days, and compulsory delay penalties for any payment beyond the legal deadlines.  After only one year, in 2010, upon request from both the Competition Council and the same producers that the law aimed at protecting, the provisions regarding the payments terms and the delay penalties have been repealed by Law 247/2010 and replaced by good sense provisions which state that such contractual terms will be the result of the negotiations among the signatories.  The tormented evolution of Law 321/2009 may serve as a good example of how not to regulate and why the public administration should not arbitrate between private interests, in the absence of any effects on aspects of public interests and without due consideration to the side effects of such measures.

Despre aspecte actuale ale retailului din Romania / Current issues of the Romanian retail trade

http://www.revista-piata.ro/Consiliul_Concurentei_urmeaza_sa_analizeze_gradul_de_concentrare_a_retailerilor_la_nivel_de_localitati-id9018.html

The Guidelines on the Petitioning Activities have been published

The guidelines on the petitioning activities have been published on the website of the Romanian Competition Council - see http://www.consiliulconcurentei.ro/uploads/docs/items/id8255/indrumari-bune_practici_in_activitatea_de_petitionare.pdf. 

The Romanian Competition Council approved, in January, its first guidelines regarding the application of the competition rules issued after the amendments to the Competition Law made in 2011 introduced expressly the possibility to use this instrument for enhancing competition compliance and helping the undertakings assesing their market behavior.  The Romanian Competition Council issued such guidelines before, since 2008, on an occasional basis.
Please note that, according to the Romanian Competition Law, the guidelines do not represent binding legal norms but they highligt the previous case-law and the approach of the Romanian Competition Council in respect of a certain behavior or practice.  The guidelines correspond to the best practices notices issued by the European Commission, which means also they do not impose any specific conduct on the undertakings but allow these to have a better self-assesment of their actions in the market and ensure compliance with the competition rules.

The new guidelines  cover the activities performed jointly by several undertakings or associations of the undertakings (such as business associations) in order to defend the interests of the respective undertakings in front of the public authorities. 

In Romania, article 51 of the Romanian Constitution provides the right of any individuals or legal persons to petition the public authorities, according to their interests.  The article 51 provides specifically, in its second paragraph that ” Legally established organizations have the right to address petitions exclusively in the name of the entities they represent”.  

Based on the provisions from the Constitution, on the European Commission Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to horizontal co-operation agreements and on the case-law of the Romanian Competition Council (RCC admitted as defenses legitimate petitioning activities in two cases brought before it in 2011 and 2012), the communication which was approved offers the following main guidelines:

§  The conformity of the petitioning activity with the competition rules shall be evaluated based on i) the purpose followed by the participating undertakings and ii) the extent to which an exchange of commercial information was permitted during the petitioning, taking into account the nature of the information exchanged.

§  Regarding the purpose, the undertakings should not be involved in petitioning actions aimed at raising the costs of the competitors (and, eventually, the costs borne by the consumers) or in raising or reinforcing entry barriers into the market.

§  Whenever several undertakings organize a collective protest against the decisions taken by a public authority, such protests should be made in such a way as to avoid affecting other undertakings or the consumers. Such actions should be limited and proportionate with the action or the measure which ignited the protest and its consequences on the respective undertakings and the market. 

In order to evaluate the legitimacy of a collective protest by several undertakings or business associations, the Romanian Competition Council will apply its own test – the extent to which the action or measure which is the object of the protest may be, prima facie, contrary to article 9 of the Romanian Competition Law (which forbids actions by public authorities which limit, impede or distort the competition, such as creating limits to the freedom of trade or discriminating conditions for the undertakings). 

The underlying ideas of these first guidelines of the Romanian Competition Council is that the undertakings should be allowed to act jointly in order to defend their common interests, similarly to the right to collective protests recognized to the employees but, on the other hand, such rights must not be used in a way which would go counter the competition rules and which might affect the consumers.