The High Administrative Court of the Republic of Croatia dismissed the appeal of the re-seller LIDL HRVATSKA d.o.o. k.d., Velika Gorica and upheld the ruling of the Administrative Court in Zagreb of 13 April 2023 rejecting the claim for cancellation of the decision of the Croatian Competition Agency (CCA) of 25 November 2021, rejecting at the same time the recovery of the party\u2019s litigation costs.<\/p>\n
Namely, the court of first instance, the Administrative Court in Zagreb, completely rejected the statement of claim of the re-seller LIDL in the administrative dispute against the respondent CCA requesting annulment of its infringement decision of 25 November 2021 and the recovery of the litigation costs. Concretely, the CCA found in the infringement decision concerned that LIDL used its strong bargaining power and imposed unfair trading practices on three suppliers within the meaning of the provisions of the Act on the prohibition of unfair trading practices in the business-to-business food supply chain (UTPs Act).<\/p>\n
Note that despite the fact that the regular quality controls were clearly agreed under the annexes to the SPAs entitled \u201cQuality Control\u201d and ensured by the suppliers at their own cost, the SPAs contained additional provision on quality control entitled \u201cCharges for quality control services\u201d. Under this provision LIDL basically introduced extra charges for quality assurance, a lump-sum payable by the supplier in proportion to the value of the goods. These additional quality control measures were initiated by LIDL in an authorised lab of its choice. Thus, the extra charges for quality assurance have been transferred on the supplier for the quality control agreed between LIDL and the authorised lab of its choice regardless of the results of the quality control. In this case, the supplier was charged for a service that has not been provided, was not real or measurable for the supplier. This provision and practice constitute an unfair trading practice within the meaning of the UTPs Act and a serious infringement of the UTPs Act that lasted for more than one year.<\/p>\n
By this ruling of the High Administrative Court the CCA infringement decision of 25 November 2021 became legally valid.<\/p>\n