Legal relations concerning the limitation of monopolization and the protection of business entities from unfair competition are governed by commercial law and, therefore, are resolved by commercial courts.
Recently, the Higher Intellectual Property Court was established in Ukraine. This court will consider cases involving disputes related to rights to inventions, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, trade names, registration disputes, recognition of intellectual property rights, invalidation, extension of validity, early termination of patents, certificates, and other acts. It will also address cases concerning the recognition of trademarks as well-known, disputes about copyright and related rights, the conclusion, amendment, termination, and execution of agreements on intellectual property rights, and disputes arising from relations concerning protection from unfair competition. This includes unauthorized use of marks or products of another manufacturer, copying product designs, collection, disclosure, and use of trade secrets, as well as appeals against AMCU decisions on such matters.
Particular attention is also given to the practice of challenging AMCU decisions related to public procurement processes. The Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine acts as the complaint review body in cases of procurement by customers using budget funds. To ensure impartial and effective protection of the rights and lawful interests of individuals involved in procurement procedures, the Committee establishes permanent administrative panels for reviewing complaints regarding violations of public procurement legislation. Decisions made by these panels are issued on behalf of the AMCU and, if contested, can be appealed in administrative courts.
The lawyers of WinnerLex Law Firm have extensive and successful experience in representing clients’ interests in disputes with the AMCU and its bodies on various issues. AMCU disputes are some of the most complex to handle, as they are reviewed by courts of different jurisdictions and require not only specific legal knowledge but also economic and sometimes purely technical expertise. This complexity makes professional assistance from our firm’s lawyers essential.
WinnerLex Law Firm offers the following services in AMCU-related disputes:
- Representation in court disputes with the AMCU and its bodies.
- Challenging AMCU decisions in cases of violations of economic competition laws, including:
- Violations of economic competition laws;
- Ceasing violations of economic competition laws;
- Eliminating the consequences of violations of economic competition laws, including mitigating or removing the negative impact of concerted actions or market concentration on competition;
- Recognition of an entity as holding a monopoly (dominant) position in the market;
- Forced division of an entity;
- Imposition of fines;
- Prohibition of market concentration;
- Blocking securities;
- Challenging AMCU decisions made as a result of reviewing complaints under the Law of Ukraine “On Public Procurement”.
Practice experience: 19 years
Specialization: litigation support, tax, customs and antitrust practices, agricultural law, IT and M&A
Practice experience: 21 years Specialization: support of economic, civil, labor and administrative disputes, energy
Practice experience: 11 years Specialization: tax, customs and corporate disputes, support of inspections, contractual activities
Practice experience: 6 years
Specialisation: business and civil law, tax and customs practice, corporate law, registration and reorganisation of business
Practice experience: 11 years Specialization: support of economic, civil, labor and administrative disputes, inspections
When challenging the decisions of the bodies of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, it is important to remember that the deadlines for appeal provided by law cannot be extended.
Note that the decisions of the standing administrative board for the consideration of complaints about violations of public procurement legislation are appealed in administrative jurisdiction courts, but complaints regarding concluded procurement contracts are considered only in judicial proceedings and in commercial jurisdiction courts.
An important point when appealing the decisions of the bodies of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine is the violation of the competence of these bodies as defined by law and the procedure for making decisions. The decision-making procedure is considered violated if such a decision is signed by an unauthorized person.
The issuance of an order by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine to initiate proceedings on a violation of economic competition law and the subsequent consideration of such a case cannot, in itself, be qualified as a violation of the rights and legally protected interests of the individuals participating in the case.
However, the presence of circumstances indicating that the contested order was issued in violation of current legislation and/or outside the competence of the issuing authority constitutes grounds for declaring it invalid. At the same time, when a commercial court resolves a dispute regarding the invalidation of an order by the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine or its territorial division to initiate proceedings on a violation of economic competition law, the court does not assess the legality of the actions of the individual to whom the order pertains.
Yes. The recognition by a commercial court of a decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine or its bodies as fully or partially invalid, based on the grounds specified in Part 1 of Article 59 of the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Economic Competition,” does not preclude the relevant authority from conducting a new review to ensure compliance with competition protection legislation, market analysis, and so forth, to address the violations or deficiencies that led to the invalidation of the decision. Based on the results of such a review, another decision may be adopted, which, in turn, can be challenged by interested parties in the prescribed manner if they disagree with it.
Yes, but with certain time limitations.
When resolving disputes related to the obligation to comply with a decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine or its territorial division or to collect funds (fines, penalties) based on such a decision, commercial courts proceed from the fact that the mere failure to challenge the decision by the person to whom it relates is not an unconditional indication of the legality of the relevant act of the public authority. In other words, for the court to conclude the mandatory execution of the decision of the Committee or its territorial division, the court must examine whether the decision complies with legal requirements if such compliance is contested by the other party to the case. However, the commercial court cannot consider arguments raised by the person against whom the decision was made (the claimant, defendant, or third party in the meaning of Article 39 of the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Economic Competition”) regarding the illegality and/or unreasonableness of the decision if these arguments are presented after the expiration of the time limits set by Part 2 of Article 47 and Part 1 of Article 60 of the mentioned Law. This is because the person did not exercise their right to challenge the relevant act of the public authority, and the expiration of the specified period precludes the possibility of reviewing the legality and reasonableness of the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine.
