a tripartite report - Unctad

198 VOLUNTARY PEER REVIEW OF CLP: A TRIPARTITE REPORT ON THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA – ZAMBIA – ZIMBABWE
The Table 4 below summarizes the number of
Commission’s decisions on restrictive business`
practices since 1999.
Table 4: Summarized Commission Decisions on Restrictive Business Practices During
1999-2011 Period
Commission Decision
No. of RBP Cases Decided Upon
1999-
2005
2006-
2009
2010-
2011
Total Percentage
Case closed for lack of competition concerns 14 3 3 20 20 per cent
Case closed for lack of serious competition concerns 8 5 0 13 13 per cent
Case closed for lack of evidence to substantiate the allegations
8 6 2 16 16 per cent
Case closed for lack of jurisdiction 0 1 1 3 3 per cent
Case proceed to full-scale investigation stage 12 2 4 18 18 per cent
Case closed on conclusion of consent agreements and signing
of Undertakings
10 4 1 15 15 per cent
Case closed on discontinuation of alleged restrictive practices 4 1 0 5 5 per cent
1 5 1 7 7 per cent
Case referred to other relevant authorities 0 1 0 1 1 per cent
Case shelved pending lifting of government price controls on
relevant products
2 1 0 3 3 per cent
Totals 59 29 12 100 100 per cent
A total of 18 cases decided upon from preliminary
investigations (18 per cent of the total cases decided
upon) proceeded to the full-scale investigation
stage, requiring advertising in the Government
Gazette and national newspapers and holding of
public hearings. 200 All the full-scale investigations
were terminate with the Commission issuing re-
and/or making advocacy recommendations to the
relevant government authorities. 201
Furthermore, the above Table shows that only 16 per
cent of the cases were closed for lack of evidence to
substantiate the allegations (this is nevertheless still a
high percentage of case closure for lack of evidence
on the alleged anticompetitive practices, most of
whom were related to collusive and cartel-like behaviour,
highlighting the need for training in inves-
Commission were those closed for lack of jurisdiction
(3 per cent), closed on discontinuation of the
alleged restrictive practices (5 per cent), referred to
other relevant authorities (1 per cent), and shelved
pending the lifting of government price controls
on the relevant products (3 per cent). The rest of
the cases (72 per cent) were heard on merit by the
Commission, and amply decided upon accordingly.
The following in Table 5 are statistics on the types
of restrictive and unfair business practices that the
Commission has addressed from its competition
decisions during the period 2008-2011:
Table 5: Types of Restrictive and Unfair Business Practices Addressed During Period 2005-2010202
Restrictive/ Unfair Business Practice 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
Abuse of dominance (monopolization) 4 6 3 2 5 5 25
Collusive and cartel-like behaviour 1 1 3 3 1 2 11
Misleading advertising 1 2 1 2 0 1 7
Vertical restraints 3 3 2 1 1 0 10
Unfair consumer practice (selling of inferior and sub-standard
goods)
0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Totals 9 12 9 9 7 8 54