Combating Anti-Competitive Agreements: New Procedures in Uzbekistan

On May 1, 2024, Resolution No. 256 of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan approved the Regulation on the Procedure for Detecting Anti-Competitive Agreements and Coordinated Actions. This document represents an important step in the development of competition policy and consumer protection, as it establishes uniform rules for identifying, investigating, and suppressing anti-competitive practices.

The Regulation was developed pursuant to the Law “On Competition” and covers:

• Procedures for detecting anti-competitive agreements and coordinated actions between both competing and non-competing business entities;
• Establishing signs of external coordination of economic activities;
• Granting immunity from liability to persons who are the first to report a violation;
• Investigation procedures and rules of evidence.

The document defines the following terms:

• Anti-competitive agreements – arrangements that restrict or may restrict competition.
• Coordinated actions – actions of market participants who have no formal agreement but act in concert.
• External coordination – the influence of third parties on market participants, resulting in restrictions on competition.

The Regulation prohibits:

• Price fixing, artificial maintenance or increase of prices;
• Coordinated production cuts or investment restrictions;
• Market division by territory, product range, or customer group;
• Restricting competitors’ access to the market;
• Imposing conditions unrelated to the subject of the contract.

 

Indicators of Anti-Competitive Agreements, Coordinated Actions, and Coordination

Category	Indicators of Violations	Examples of Evidence
Price fixing	- Simultaneous price increases/decreases without objective reasons - Identical price lists despite differing costs - Artificial maintenance of tariffs, discounts, markups	- Copies of contracts or protocols with fixed prices - Written or electronic correspondence - Parallel price changes in reports
Supply restriction	- Coordinated production cuts - Introduction of quotas - Creating artificial shortages despite high demand	- Meeting minutes or agreements on volumes - Statistical data on production cuts - Market participants’ statements
Market division	- Agreements on territorial allocation - Segmentation by customer categories - Control over sales channels	- Market distribution maps - Contracts with territorial restrictions - Witness statements
Bid rigging	- Submission of identical offers by different participants - Participation of affiliated parties in the same lot - Instructions to withdraw from bidding or set a specific price	- Tender committee minutes - E-trading system logs - Addresses and contact details of participants
External coordination	- Third-party influence on pricing policies - Orders to cease operations in a region - Imposing contract terms	- Written or oral instructions - Negotiation records - Documents with imposed conditions

 

Evidence of Anti-Competitive Agreements: How Market Collusion is Detected

In today’s market, establishing the fact of anti-competitive agreements or coordinated actions requires not only analysis of participants’ behavior but also the collection of solid evidence. Uzbek legislation clearly distinguishes between direct and indirect evidence and specifies when each can be used.

Direct Evidence

Documents and information directly confirming collusion, including:

• Contracts and agreements between participants fixing anti-competitive terms.
• Telephone conversations and correspondence (including messengers and social networks).
• Minutes, letters, invoices, price lists, payment orders.
• Records and notes reflecting the fact of arrangements.
• Testimonies of participants, including those who refused to join.
• Third-party testimony aware of the content and purpose of the deal.

Indirect Evidence

Information that does not itself confirm collusion but indicates its signs when evaluated comprehensively, such as:

• Oral information exchange or via ICT.
• Public price announcements without legal necessity.
• Uniform and synchronous actions affecting competition.
• Simultaneous price changes without economic justification.
• Uniform prices despite different production costs.
• Unjustified production or investment cuts.
• Restriction of product distribution to certain regions.
• Prices inflated compared to similar markets.
• Meetings of alleged collusion participants in one place.
• Repeated participation of the same companies in tenders under a coordinated scheme.
• Unjustified refusals to participate in tenders.
• Subcontracts between tender winners and other participants.
• Stable and unchanged prices in a given territory.
• Collective price increases in tenders.
• Sharp price fluctuations with the entry of new participants.
• Identical calculations and errors in documents of different participants.
• Instructions from third parties regarding prices, volumes, or cessation of operations.

Analytical Evidence

In addition to direct and indirect proof, the antimonopoly authority may use:

• Results of price and market analysis.
• Comparison of contract terms and price dynamics.
• Study of market barriers and participants’ affiliation.
• Identification of schemes to circumvent competition requirements.

Evidence collection in collusion cases requires a comprehensive approach combining documentary evidence, market process analysis, and evaluation of participants’ behavior. The more diverse and systematic the data collected, the higher the chances of successfully stopping anti-competitive practices.

 

Detection of Anti-Competitive Agreements and Coordinated Actions in Bidding

Bidding is a key mechanism for ensuring fair competition, particularly in public procurement, auctions, and exchange trading. However, they often become a field for collusion and coordination of participants’ actions to the detriment of the market and consumers. Resolution No. 256 establishes clear criteria for detecting such violations.

What is Prohibited in Bidding

Anti-competitive agreements and coordinated actions in bidding include:

• Violation of bidding procedures — coordination of participants’ actions or interference in the process.
• Creating advantages for certain participants (access to insider information, special conditions).
• Including restrictive requirements in documentation, narrowing the range of participants.
• Price manipulation, including via pricing algorithms in e-trading.
• Dissemination of false information affecting demand and prices.
• Unjustified refusal to sign a contract based on bidding results.
• Collusion to raise or lower prices in competitive selections, tenders, and auctions.

Exchange Trading: Special Control

Additional prohibitions for exchange transactions include:

• Manipulating current prices.
• Restricting buyer participation through lot conditions.
• Offering products in smaller volumes or with delays.
• Violating rules for determining starting prices.
• Concluding deals at artificially low or inflated prices.
• Selling monopoly products via direct contracts bypassing the exchange.

Examples of Signs of Bid Rigging

• Simultaneous submission of identical bids by different participants.
• Participation of only affiliated parties in one lot.
• Sequential price increases/decreases and refusal to contract.
• Orders not to participate or to submit a certain price.
• Artificial exclusion of competitors from participation.

Consequences of Violations

Violation of the established requirements leads to invalidation of:

• Decisions made by the tender committee.
• Contracts concluded as a result of the bidding.

Additionally, the antimonopoly authority may impose administrative and financial sanctions, and information about violators may be entered into a blacklist.

Systematic control over bidding is the key to fair competition. The new rules enable antimonopoly authorities not only to promptly detect collusion but also to stop it at early stages, protecting the interests of the state, business, and consumers.

 

Review of Anti-Competitive Agreements and Coordinated Actions

The market does not tolerate artificial restrictions, and a competitive environment requires equal conditions for all participants. However, collusion and coordinated actions between companies still occur, which is why the Antimonopoly Authority of Uzbekistan is empowered to promptly respond to such violations.

How the Review Begins

The basis for initiating an investigation is the presence of signs of:

• Conclusion of anti-competitive agreements;
• Execution of coordinated actions affecting the market.

Information may come from citizens, organizations, media, government agencies, or be identified by the antimonopoly authority during monitoring.

Actions of the Antimonopoly Authority

• Situation analysis — studying price dynamics, production volumes, contract terms.
• Request for explanations — entrepreneurs must prove that price increases or other actions are not the result of collusion and have justified economic reasons.
• Evidence collection — using both direct and indirect proof listed in the law.
• Decision-making — if data is not provided, the authority may issue a conclusion based on its own analysis.

Burden of Proof

If the authority has evidence, the burden of proving the absence of collusion rests with the participants suspected of committing it.

Right to Defense

Business entities and associations of legal entities may:

• Present evidence that their transactions and actions are not coordinated;
• Confirm that they do not violate competition law.

Consequences

According to the Regulation:

• Anti-competitive agreements and coordinated actions are deemed void;
• Decisions based on them are annulled;
• Administrative and financial liability may be applied.

The procedure for reviewing such cases is designed to ensure balance — on one hand, to prevent and punish collusion, and on the other, to give businesses the opportunity to justify their actions if they are lawful.