Page 4 - Bulletin No. 14 - Free Competition

BOLETÍN de Libre Competencia PANAMÁ The National Directorate of Free Competition, received complaint filed by the economic agent Obrigado Medical
Imposition Sale of Rice
Group Inc., on the existence of a possible monopolistic
practice relative, made by the National Commission of
National Registry of Bidders (Commission) of the Ministry
through the Coclé Regional Office, information on a
of Health (MINSA) by repeatedly requesting the
possible anti-competitive practice in the sale of rice.
made by the manufacturers, that their company represents
From the information gathered, a possible relative complainant economic agent, to certify by means of a note
the commercial houses of the products that sells.
monopolistic practice was presumed, based on the
supposed imposition of sale of first-grade rice conditioned According to the complainant, such actions by the Ministry
on the sale of special rice by a mill through a memorandum, of Health, go against the rules of free competition.
within said company. This instruction was aimed at
customers (retailers) who buy their products, in this case Once the complaint was received, the corresponding
special rice and first-grade rice. analyzes were carried out, determining, among other

The case was things, that, since it is a public bidding act, the MINSA does
not present itself as an economic bidder subject to an
evaluated in the active activity in the economic activity, but as a buyer,
light of Law No. 45 therefore , is not seen as a direct competitor of the
of 2007, in the complainant.
sense of
d e t e r mi ni ng In this sense, it is important to clarify that, since it is an
whether the allegedly monopolistic practice, the norm is clear in
prohibition of establishing that they are considered to be in violation of
relative practices the Law, if the economic agent that exercises it has
(which typifies substantial power in the relevant market, a situation that
Article 16 of the does not it is configured in this case since the MINSA does
Law) is met, not have the status of economic agent that participates as
provided that the an active subject in the economic activity.
economic agent has substantial power individually or
collectively (Article 19), in the relevant market (art.18). For Similarly, it is important to note the fact that the initial
these purposes and according to the available information, complaint is part of the proceedings related to the
it was determined that the reported mill did not have registration of bidders carried out by the Commission,
substantial power in the relevant market, defined as whose governing body is the MINSA, and therefore it
first-grade rice in the city of Penonome, province of Coclé, escapes the competence of ACODECO. In addition, the
since, in the area there are others mills that sell rice to said complainant requests the suspension of the public act
minorities, including mills in the provinces of Veraguas, carried out by the MINSA, an aspect for which ACODECO
Chiriqui and Panama, which compete with it demonstrating has no jurisdiction.
in this way that does not meet the de facto assumption
established by law to determine that we are facing an Therefore, it is concluded that the act denounced does not
unlawful relative conduct. meet the requirements of Law 45 of 2007 for a relative
monopolistic practice to be established, given that the
For the aforementioned aspects, among other analyzes, entity denounced is not an economic agent that participates
we proceeded to recommend the non-opening of the case as an active subject in the activity economic
and the archiving of the investigation file.

Preliminary Investigation on possible
Relative Monopolistic Practice, in the
Supply of Spare Parts for Biomedical
Equipment (Autoclave) of the Public Bid No.
2017-0-12-0-08-LP-021984

The National Directorate of Free Competition of the
Authority for Consumer Protection and Competition
Defense, (hereinafter, ACODECO), has come to know by

4 PRESENT