PolicyPulse.pro
a black and white chessboard with a white king and a black queen clashing and flying
Fatima Shahid

Croatian Competition Authority Uncovers PBX Market Cartel Involving Six Companies

04.03.2025 | Croatian competition authority

The Croatian Competition Agency has confirmed that six companies engaged in a cartel in the PBX market, leading to fines totaling over €1.1 million.


The Croatian Competition Agency (CCA) issued a decision on December 18, 2024, confirming that six companies participated in a prohibited agreement regarding the sale and maintenance of private branch exchange (PBX) systems in Croatia. The companies involved are Ericsson Nikola Tesla d.d., Retel d.o.o., Kodeks d.o.o., Vatel d.o.o., Lumiss d.o.o., and Mitel Austria GmbH. The violation occurred between October 1, 2010, and July 14, 2015.

The CCA imposed fines totaling €1,170,968.24 on the involved companies, with Ericsson Nikola Tesla facing the largest penalty of €785,570.58. Other fines included €113,405.66 for Kodeks, €23,734.29 for Retel, €39,135.04 for Vatel, €29,834.54 for Lumiss, and €179,288.13 for Mitel Austria.

The investigation was initiated under Article 8 of the Competition Act to examine potential prohibited agreements in the PBX market, particularly within the Enterprise Program. This program was originally a product of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson but was sold to Aastra Technologies Limited in 2008 and later acquired by Mitel Networks Corporation in 2014.

The CCA found that the companies engaged in a market-sharing agreement, allocating specific customers to each participant to avoid competition in selling, installing, maintaining, and upgrading PBX systems. Two companies, Steiner and Kodeks, applied for leniency during the proceedings, admitting their participation in the cartel. Kodeks claimed that Ericsson NT initiated the agreement and pressured them into compliance.

The CCA classified the violation as a severe infringement of competition law, specifically an intra-brand cartel, which is strictly prohibited under Article 8 of the Competition Act. The investigation also considered whether the agreement violated EU competition law, but found no legal grounds to proceed under EU law.

Consult source

Terms of Service | Refund Policy | Privacy Policy | Coverage
LinkedInFollow us on LinkedIn

© 2024 PolicyPulse. All rights reserved.

See something you like or don't like? Let us know!