The Supreme Court upheld the AMCU’s decision in the case based on the application of ”Kovalska”

On September 11, the Cassation Economic Court of the Supreme Court of Ukraine considered the cassation appeal of LLC “Kovalska Industrial and Construction Group” in case No. 910/13150/24. The company appealed the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine related to the permit for concentration in the building materials market.

This was reported by journalist Daria Gol, who attended the meeting.

“Kovalska” believed that the Antimonopoly Committee incorrectly assessed the economic consequences of the merger, which could limit competition in the cement market. Company representatives emphasized that after the concentration, only two large manufacturers would remain, which, in their opinion, creates risks for price increases and narrowing of competition. “Kovalska” lawyers also noted that the AMCU did not take into account all the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar cases and did not conduct a comprehensive economic assessment.

In turn, the Antimonopoly Committee assured that the decision was made within its legal powers. The representative of the Antimonopoly Committee stated that “the assessment of the effectiveness of the obligations is the exclusive competence of the committee”, adding that the plaintiff did not provide evidence of actual non-fulfillment of the obligations. The Committee also noted that during the consideration of the application, more than 30 responses were received from market participants, and several mandatory conditions were imposed to mitigate risks.

Third parties, in particular representatives of GMPI, also spoke at the court hearing. They drew attention to procedural violations regarding their involvement, and the Supreme Court recognized these remarks as justified.

The judicial panel, consisting of Yuriy Vlasov, Igor Benedysyuk, and Iryna Kolos, decided to leave the cassation appeal of LLC “Kovalska” without satisfaction, and the decisions of the courts of previous instances and the Antimonopoly Committee unchanged. The petition of third parties was granted.

The Supreme Court noted that the appellate court had assessed correctly the case materials and had not found any violations that could have affected the legality of the decision.

This case is of great importance to the Ukrainian cement and construction materials market, where a trend of consolidation among producers is evident. Kovalska warned of the risks associated with price increases and a decline in the number of competitors. At the same time, the AMCU argues that the established conditions minimize these threats and ensure market balance.

The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the broad powers of the Antimonopoly Committee in regulating concentrations and the importance of adhering to procedural discipline during the appeal process.