Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

OECD Reviews of Competition Law and Policy: Ukraine 2016

This presentation introduces the key findings of the Review made by the OECD in its report launched in Kyiv on 2 March 2017. Access the full report page http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/competitionlawandpolicyinukraine2016.htm

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

OECD Reviews of Competition Law and Policy: Ukraine 2016

  1. 1. OECD Reviews of Competition Law and Policy: Ukraine 2016 Launch of the report – Kyiv, 2 March 2017 Key findings from the OECD Report
  2. 2. Ukraine underwent its peer review by the OECD in 2008 and UNCTAD in 2013. In November 2016, the OECD Competition Committee reviewed the status and implementation of the recommendations made by these reviews while also providing new ones as needed. This presentation introduces the key findings of the Review made by the OECD in its report launched in Kyiv on 2 March 2017. Background For many years, OECD competition law and policy peer reviews have proved to be a valuable tool for countries, whether OECD members or not, to reform, strengthen, and improve their competition frameworks. 2
  3. 3. 1. Increase the AMC’s financial resources and institutional autonomy coherent with its mandate and importance to Ukraine’s economy. Upgrade technical infrastructure. 2. Give the AMC the power to seize documents from business premises; conduct interviews of business officials, without prior consent of the firm; inspect private residences. 3. Extend the leniency programme beyond the first applicant. 4. Introduce individual as well as parental liability. 5. Make AMC decisions directly enforceable to increase effectiveness and deterrence. Key Recommendations 3
  4. 4. 6. Allow interim injunctions pending the completion of investigations. 7. Promote specialisation of competition law courts or judges. 8. Improve AMC priority setting and project selection mechanisms and invest the AMC with more power to choose cases. 9. Prioritise enforcement action against hard-core cartels. 10. Favour structural merger commitments and implement effective monitoring. Key Recommendations (Cont’d) 4
  5. 5. 11. Increase AMC transparency, through agency guidelines and communication of AMC enforcement priorities and its interpretation of the law. 12. Strengthen the evaluation regime and apply lessons learned to future cases. 13. Train public procurement officials to better prevent and detect bid rigging and co-ordinate with the AMC. 14. Position the AMC as a competition advocate within government by i) strengthening relations with other agencies and bodies; ii) developing AMC expertise in competition assessment. Key Recommendations (Cont’d) 5
  6. 6.  The first step is to increase the AMC’s resources, to enable it to fulfil its mandate. The required resources are very small compared to the expected gains from stronger competition to the Ukrainian economy. By optimising existing resources, the AMC could realise immediate benefits.  The AMC’s capable, committed leadership is already taking steps to focus the agency’s enforcement on priority areas. To sustain this quality of leadership the appointment and dismissal rules should ensure merit based appointments and foresee staggered replacements to avoid the loss of continuity that comes if the entire board, or most of the board, departs the AMC at the same time. Priorities: Resources and Institutional Design 6
  7. 7. The AMC needs increased investigatory and enforcement powers, including:  Effective dawn raid, seizure and interrogation powers for business and private premises, not requiring the consent of the investigated undertakings and individuals.  Leniency for subsequent applicants.  Individual liability, higher administrative penalties and effective means against fine evasion.  Direct enforceability of AMC decisions.  Enforcement co-operation with other jurisdictions including the authority to exchange information. Priorities: Investigation and Enforcement Powers 7
  8. 8. This Review identifies a number of areas where the AMC, without recourse to new legislation, can achieve better results. AMC should intensify its efforts to:  Strengthen the system for setting priorities and use this system to select cases and advocacy projects that deliver the best value for Ukraine’s economy.  Improve the performance of routine law enforcement tasks.  Improve the transparency of its operations.  Incorporate in its working methods a reflex of ongoing evaluation of completed matters and existing procedures. Priorities: Operations 8
  9. 9. Contacts: Lynn.Robertson@oecd.org Sabine.Zigelski@oecd.org More work on country reviews: www.oecd.org/daf/competition/countryreviewsofcompetitionpolicyframeworks.htm www.oecd.org/daf/competition

×