Threats of fines for future infringements by the Competition Commission

The Competition Commission threatens the association of companies “Association of Manned Security Services” and the individual company “Kalogerakis Emmanouil tou Georgiou” with fines and fines for violations in the market of security services in the future.

Specifically, today’s announcement of the committee states the following:

The Plenary Session of the Competition Commission (“EA”) examined, following a proposal, a complaint against companies operating in the market of security services for violation of articles 1 L. 703/1977 and 1 L. 3959/2011 and 101 of the Operational Treaty of the European Union (“TFEU”), which have been left out of the settlement process and specifically against companies a) MONDIALPOL HELLAS SECURITY SERVICES SOCIETE ANONYME PRIVATE BUSINESS SERVICE b) ) ESA SECURITY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE SECURITY SERVICE ENTERPRISE SOCIETE ANONYME (d.a. “ESA SECURITY SOLUTIONS SA”), as well as the ex-officio investigation of the service in the market 1 Law 3959/2011 and 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

By its Decision No. 731/2021, the Committee, in plenary, decided unanimously and by open ballot, the following:

A. Finds a violation, according to what is stated in the reasoning of the Decision, of articles 1 N. 3959/2011, 1 L. 703/1977 and 101 TFEU by the association of companies “ASSOCIATION OF MANAFTED SERVICES for SAFETY”, period from 25.5.2009 to 06.09.2011.

B. Notes that due to the application of article 25 par. 2 of law 3959/2011 on the maximum amount of fine imposed by law, the fine for the participation of the association of companies “BUSINESS ASSOCIATION is a manned service”.

C. Finds that the sole proprietorship “KALOGERAKIS EMMANOUIL TOU GEORGIOU”, violated articles 1 N. 3959/2011 and 1 L. 703/1977, for the period from 11.11.2010 to 12.4.2011.

D. Does not impose a fine on the sole proprietorship “KALOGERAKIS EMMANOUIL TOU GEORGIOU”, according to the reasoning in the decision.

E. Obliges the association of companies “ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES ENTERPRISES” and the sole proprietorship “KALOGERAKIS EMMANOUIL TOU GEORGIOU” to omit in the future the ascertained findings.

F. Threatens the association of companies “ASSOCIATION OF MANAFTED SECURITY SERVICES COMPANIES” and the sole proprietorship “KALOGERAKIS EMMANOUIL TOU GEORGIOU” to be fined and fined.

G. Does not find a violation of articles 1 N. 3959/2011, 1 L. 703/1977, according to the reasoning in the Decision, by the companies “MONDIALPOL HELLAS SECURITY SERVICES SOCIETE ANONYME PRIVATE BUSINESS SERVICE SERVICE” SECURITY SERVICES SOCIETE ANONYME “(now” ESA SECURITY SOLUTIONS SA “).

Record

The complaint against the above companies refers to an illegal concerted practice by the three companies regarding security services, in violation of competition law. The complainant refers to two tenders, for which she claimed that there was harmonization of the financial offers of the companies, in violation of the provisions of Law 703/1977 and Law 3959/2011.

In the context of the investigation of the case, a series of investigative measures took place and in particular a) on-site inspections were carried out at the offices of security companies, the Association of Greek Security Operations (“SEEA”) and the Association of Manned Security Services (“SEEVA”), in companies in the sector and in contracting authorities, deposits were received illegally from representatives of companies providing security services at the offices of EA and assistance was requested through the provision of public service data.

Relevant market

According to the committee and based on the data of the case file, the relevant purchase for the purposes of the case is considered the provision of security services. Security services are offered throughout Greece under sufficiently homogeneous conditions of competition, as the commercial policy of the companies does not differ based on geographical criteria. Therefore, the geographical market is defined as the whole of the Greek territory.

Legal assessment

Based on the reasoning of the decision, SEEVA, through the Sectoral Collective Bargaining Agreements (“KSSE”) of 2009 and 2010 aimed at determining the price of the security services provided, regulating the profit of the employers-member companies of the association and causing distortion of competition. on the market prices of tenders for security services. It becomes obvious that the said anti-competitive action of SEEVA had as object the distortion of competition in violation of articles 1 par. 1 L. 3959/2011, 1 par. 1 L. 703/1977 and 101 TFEU.

Also, there is the exchange of data and financial bids between companies that participated in the Dispute Settlement Process and the sole proprietorship KALOGERAKIS SECURITY, in the context of their participation in tendering procedures announced during the years 2010 and 2011. The above bids, which were also the object of the exchange in question, in comparison with the award data of the respective body, coincide absolutely numerically with the finally submitted ones. In particular, there was a distortion of the tender procedures by the participating companies, through the exchange of data, the submission of fictitious bids by the sole proprietorship KALOGERAKIS SECURITY, with the aim of pre-agreed assignment of the project to a company that participated in the Dispute Settlement Process under conditions of superficial healthy competition.

In the context of the case, in addition to the practices of falsification of tenders found above by the sole proprietorship KALOGERAKIS SECURITY, were also investigated, in terms of their compatibility with the provisions of article 1 of law 703/1977 and L.3959 / 2011 Practices of companies ESA SECURITY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE BUSINESS OF SECURITY SAFETY SAFETY SAFETY COMPANY, Company participating in the dispute settlement and MONDIALPOL HELLAS SECURITY SERVICES ANONYME COMPANY PRIVATE BUSINESS OF SAFETY SERVICES, for two (2) Competitions for the Equal Public Works Auctioned in the period 2009 -2010. In the judgment of the Competition Commission, it was not sufficiently proved by law that the above practices are contrary to the provisions of article 1 of Law 703/1977 and / or Law 3959/2011. Specifically, it is noted that the investigation of the Service did not reveal any conciliatory data for the submission of equal bids in the complained tenders.