The appeal of MTEL has been accepted, and the appellate decision of the Higher Court for Misdemeanors is as follows: the acquisition of Slovenian Arena Sport by Arena Channels Group d.o.o. Belgrade was not deemed a prohibited concentration, and MTEL was not fined the amount of €806,953.09.
When acquiring a 50 percent stake in the Slovenian company “Arena Sport” in November 2020, MTEL did not violate Article 18 of the Competition Protection Law, and the concentration in question was not prohibited – this is the outcome of the second-instance ruling of the Higher Court for Misdemeanors in Podgorica, which accepted MTEL’s appeal.
The Higher Court for Misdemeanors of Montenegro, in the misdemeanor case involving the Competition Protection Agency of Montenegro against the telecommunications company “MTEL” d.o.o., upheld MTEL’s appeal against the decision of the Misdemeanor Court.
In its ruling, the Higher Court for Misdemeanors determined that MTEL had not committed the violation alleged against it.
Thus, it has been confirmed for the second time that the concentration in question was not prohibited and that there was no violation of Article 18 of the Competition Protection Law during the acquisition of Slovenian Arena Sport.
To recap, after the first-instance decision of the Misdemeanor Court on March 24, 2023, MTEL was exonerated. Subsequently, in the repeated proceedings, the same court imposed a fine of €806,953.09 due to the alleged violation of Article 18 of the Competition Protection Law related to the concentration carried out by Arena Channels Group d.o.o. Belgrade, through the acquisition of a 50 percent stake in the company “Arena Sport” from Slovenia by Arena Channels Group d.o.o. Belgrade in November 2020.
After MTEL filed an appeal, the Higher Court determined that the appeal was justified and that the concentration in question was not prohibited. The court also found that its implementation did not lead to a violation of Article 18 of the Competition Protection Law, for which a fine of 1-10% of the revenue generated in the financial year preceding the year of the alleged violation is prescribed, which in this case amounted to €806,953.09.
