Judgment of the Administrative Regional Court of the Republic of Latvia regarding KIA Auto AS and TKM Grupp AS

Core Viewpoint - The Administrative Regional Court of Latvia upheld the Latvian Competition Council's 2014 decision against KIA Auto AS and TKM Grupp AS, which imposed a fine for alleged anti-competitive practices related to warranty conditions for KIA vehicles, despite the companies' extensive evidence and arguments to the contrary [1][5]. Summary by Sections Legal Proceedings - The case has been ongoing for over ten years, initiated by a decision from the Latvian Competition Council on August 7, 2014, which KIA Auto AS and TKM Grupp AS are contesting [1]. - The companies plan to submit a cassation claim to the Supreme Court of Latvia, disagreeing with the court's findings [1]. Allegations and Fines - The Competition Council's 2014 decision alleged that KIA passenger car owners were required to perform maintenance only at authorized services to maintain warranty validity, leading to a fine of €135,000 for KIA Auto AS, with €95,000 imposed on TKM Grupp AS [2]. Defense Arguments - KIA Auto AS and TKM Grupp AS argue that the case was based on a single warranty refusal by a third party, which acknowledged that KIA Auto AS was not involved in the decision [3]. - They contend that the warranty conditions allowed servicing at independent centers, provided that maintenance was inspected at an authorized center, and assert that the Competition Council misinterpreted these conditions [3]. Court Proceedings and Rulings - The Supreme Court of Latvia previously referred the case back to the Administrative Regional Court for a comprehensive analysis of the alleged anti-competitive behavior [4]. - After a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Administrative Regional Court resumed proceedings but ultimately upheld the Competition Council's decision, disregarding the companies' evidence and the EU court's guidance [5]. Next Steps - TKM Grupp AS will communicate further steps regarding the litigation to the stock exchange as per regulatory requirements [6].