{"id":1575,"date":"2017-07-03T07:47:38","date_gmt":"2017-07-03T07:47:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.chirita-law.com\/?p=987"},"modified":"2025-12-29T09:47:38","modified_gmt":"2025-12-29T07:47:38","slug":"pledoarie-pentru-aplicarea-sanctiunii-avertismentului-in-domeniul-practicilor-anticoncurentiale-reglementate-de-dispozitiile-legii-nr-211996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/pledoarie-pentru-aplicarea-sanctiunii-avertismentului-in-domeniul-practicilor-anticoncurentiale-reglementate-de-dispozitiile-legii-nr-211996\/","title":{"rendered":"Pledoarie pentru aplicarea sanc\u021biunii avertismentului \u00een domeniul practicilor anticoncuren\u021biale reglementate de dispozi\u021biile Legii nr. 21\/1996."},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Conform Deciziei nr. 4503 pronun\u021bate de \u00cenalta Curte de Casa\u021bie \u0219i Justi\u021bie la data de 26 nov. 2014: \u201e<em>Av\u00e2nd \u00een vedere c\u0103 legea-cadru a contraven\u0163iilor prevede avertismentul ca sanc\u0163iune cu aplicabilitate general\u0103, \u00een absen\u0163a unor prevederi exprese \u00een Legea concuren\u0163ei care s\u0103 interzic\u0103 aplicarea unei astfel de sanc\u0163iuni, de lege lata nu se poate sus\u0163ine c\u0103 sanc\u0163iunea avertismentului nu ar avea aplicabilitate \u015fi \u00een privin\u0163a contraven\u0163iilor prev\u0103zute de Legea nr. 21\/1996.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>Aceast\u0103 sanc\u0163iune ar putea fi aplicat\u0103 \u00eens\u0103 doar \u00een cazul unor \u00eenc\u0103lc\u0103ri de gravitate redus\u0103, astfel cum sunt acestea definite de Instruc\u0163iunile privind individualizarea sanc\u0163iunilor (Cap. 2 pct. B) \u015fi doar pentru \u00eentreprinderi fa\u0163\u0103 de care nu s-ar re\u0163ine niciuna dintre circumstan\u0163ele agravante prev\u0103zute \u00een acelea\u015fi Instruc\u0163iuni (Cap. 3 lit. b)): s\u0103 nu se afle \u00een situa\u0163ia de recidiv\u0103, s\u0103 fi \u00eencetat practica anticoncuren\u0163ial\u0103 cel mai t\u00e2rziu la momentul \u00eenceperii investiga\u0163iei Consiliului Concuren\u0163ei, s\u0103 nu fi refuzat cooperarea cu Consiliul pe parcursul investiga\u0163iei, s\u0103 nu fi obstruc\u0163ionat \u00een vreun fel investiga\u0163ia, s\u0103 nu fi fost ini\u0163iatoare a practicii interzise sanc\u0163ionate).<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Hot\u0103r\u00e2rea mai sus redat\u0103 tran\u0219eaz\u0103 problematica aplicabilit\u0103\u021bii dispozi\u021biilor OG 2\/2001 \u00een materia dreptului concuren\u021bei, \u0219i statueaz\u0103 cu putere de lucru judecat faptul c\u0103 Legea 21\/1996 NU beneficiaz\u0103 de propriul regim sanc\u021bionator, de sine st\u0103t\u0103tor, distinct \u0219i independent de cel reglementat \u00een dreptul comun \u00een materia contraven\u021bional\u0103.<\/p>\n<p>Cu alte cuvinte, din moment ce \u00een cuprinsul Legii nr. 21\/1996 <strong>nu s-a prev\u0103zut expres interzicerea aplic\u0103rii sanc\u0163iunii avertisment<\/strong><strong>ului<\/strong>, astfel cum de exemplu exist\u0103 o atare dispozi\u0163ie \u00een cuprinsul Legii nr. 50\/1991 privind regimul construc\u0163iilor, <strong>contravenientul poate fi sanc<\/strong><strong>\u021b<\/strong><strong>ionat cu avertisment <\/strong><strong>\u00ee<\/strong><strong>n acele situa<\/strong><strong>\u021b<\/strong><strong>ii <\/strong><strong>\u00ee<\/strong><strong>n care <\/strong><strong>\u00ee<\/strong><strong>nc<\/strong><strong>\u0103<\/strong><strong>lcarea este de gravitate redus<\/strong><strong>\u0103<\/strong><strong>, <\/strong><strong>\u00ee<\/strong><strong>n temeiul dispozi\u0163iilor art. 7 alin. <\/strong><strong>(3) din O.G. nr. 2\/2001 privind regimul juridic al contraven\u0163iilo<\/strong>r.<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Prin urmare, aceast\u0103 sanc\u0163iune va fi exclus\u0103 <em>de plano<\/em> doar \u00een situa\u0163ia \u00een care legea special\u0103 con\u0163ine dispozi\u0163ii neechivoce \u00een acest sens, \u00een lipsa lor sanc\u0163iunea avertismentului put\u00e2nd fi aplicat\u0103 indiferent de natura contraven\u0163iei.<\/p>\n<p>\u00centruc\u00e2t autorit\u0103\u021bile na\u021bionale de concuren\u021b\u0103 care aplic\u0103 sanc\u021biunile corespunz\u0103toare au la dispozi\u021bie o paleta larg\u0103 de m\u0103suri care pot fi dispuse la finalul investiga\u021biei, raportat la gravitatea respectiv \u00eentinderea practicilor anticoncuren\u021biale, \u00een concret acestea se pot orienta fie \u00eenspre stabilirea unor\u00a0 sanc\u021biuni pecuniare, fie \u00eenspre aplicarea unei politici de clemen\u021b\u0103 \u00een m\u0103sura \u00een care natura faptelor respective permite acest lucru. \u00cen egal\u0103 m\u0103sur\u0103, nu este exclus ca autorit\u0103\u021bile competente s\u0103 accepte angajamentele propuse de \u00eentreprinderi \u00een cazul practicilor anticoncuren\u021biale, \u00een vederea \u00eenl\u0103tur\u0103rii situa\u021biei care a condus la declan\u0219area investiga\u021biei.<\/p>\n<p>Pe cale de consecin\u021b\u0103, ad\u0103ugarea sanc\u021biunii avertismentului \u00een materia Legii 21\/1996 nu conduce <em>per se<\/em> la golirea de con\u0163inut al efectului exemplar \u0219i preventiv al sanc\u021biunilor \u00een materie de concuren\u021b\u0103, cum \u00een mod frecvent s-a invocat \u00een practica judiciar\u0103, ci doar respect\u0103 \u0219i confirm\u0103 inciden\u021ba principiului propor\u0163ionalit\u0103\u0163ii \u00een materia sanc\u0163ion\u0103rii faptelor anticoncuren\u0163iale, astfel cum acesta a fost pus \u00een aplicare de c\u0103tre Curtea de Justi\u021bie a Uniunii Europene .<\/p>\n<p>\u00cen viziunea acestei instan\u0163e, <em>pedeapsa nu este justificat\u0103 exclusiv prin caracterul de descurajare viitoare a comportamentelor anticoncuren\u0163iale, ci mai ales deoarece o persoan\u0103 care \u00eencalc\u0103 legea trebuie s\u0103 pl\u0103teasc\u0103 propor\u0163ional cu prejudiciul provocat<\/em>.<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Apreciem a\u0219adar c\u0103 se impune \u00een sarcina autorit\u0103\u021bile na\u021bionale de concuren\u021b\u0103 s\u0103 aib\u0103 \u00een vedere la aplicarea sanc\u021biunilor corespunz\u0103toare fiec\u0103rei situa\u021bii \u00een parte inclusiv pe cea a avertismentului prev\u0103zut\u0103 de OG 2\/2001, cu at\u00e2t mai mult cu c\u00e2t \u00een procesul de individualizare a m\u0103surilor dispuse\u00a0 CJUE recomand\u0103 s\u0103 se apeleze la cea mai pu\u0163in oneroas\u0103, iar dezavantajele s\u0103 nu fie dispropor\u0163ionate fa\u021b\u0103 de scopul urm\u0103rit.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]<\/a> <em><u>Avertismentul se poate aplica \u015fi \u00een cazul \u00een care actul normativ de stabilire \u015fi sanc\u0163ionare a contraven\u0163iei nu prevede aceast\u0103 sanc\u0163iune.<\/u><\/em><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]<\/a> Belgian Sewing Thread\/Comisia, 2010;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Conform Deciziei nr. 4503 pronun\u021bate de \u00cenalta Curte de Casa\u021bie \u0219i Justi\u021bie la data de 26 nov. 2014: \u201eAv\u00e2nd \u00een vedere c\u0103 legea-cadru a contraven\u0163iilor prevede avertismentul ca sanc\u0163iune cu aplicabilitate general\u0103, \u00een absen\u0163a unor prevederi exprese \u00een Legea concuren\u0163ei care s\u0103 interzic\u0103 aplicarea unei astfel de sanc\u0163iuni, de lege lata nu se poate sus\u0163ine [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1575","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-consultanta-juridica-generala"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1575","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1575"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1575\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1575"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1575"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chirita-law.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1575"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}