Robert Neruda is a partner of Havel, Holásek & Partners and the head of’ the firm’s team of lawyers specializing in competition & state aid law (Brno office). Robert focuses on advising clients in the areas of cartels, abuse of dominance, control of concentrations, state aid and public procurement. He typically represents clients in proceedings related to concentrations between undertakings and advises them on related issues, represents businesses suspected of anti-competitive conduct, and advises clients on the competition aspects of their contemplated projects. He also frequently advises clients on compliance issues. Before joining Havel, Holásek & Partners, Robert worked at the Czech Office for the Protection of Competition from 2000 to 2003, first at the International Department, later as Director of the Analytical Department, then as Deputy Chief Director. He then served as an assistant to the judge at the Czech Supreme Administrative Court in 2004 and 2005. After his return to the Office for the Protection of Competition, he worked as the chairman of the appellate committee for antitrust and mergers, and as a member of the appellate committee on public procurement. Beginning in 2007, he served as the head of the Competition Section; in 2008 as Vice-Chairman of the Office; and in 2009 as the Office’s acting chairman.
96
Relevant facts Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic, Department of concentrations ("Office") approved the concentration consisting in the creation of a joint venture of Henkel Hong Kong Holding Limited ("Henkel") and Tiande Chemical Holdings Limited ("Tiande"). Proceedings before the (...)
48
Relevant facts On 28 September, 2011, the Slovak Antimonopoly Office’s Cartel Department (the “Office”) imposed a fine on both PAP-PEX and SLOVPAP Slovakia in the total amount of EUR 63,387 for colluding over bids on office supplies in relation to a public procurement of the Social Insurance (...)
71
Relevant facts On 8 July 2011 the Council of the Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter referred to as "Office") upheld the first instance Office’s decision imposing the fine of EUR 9 028 746 on the undertaking Slovnaft for a discriminatory pricing in wholesale of fuels in the (...)
614
I. Relevant facts In the following decision, the Slovak Antimonopoly Office stated that the agreement between competitors restricted competition. The competitors coordinated their behaviour by pricing, dividing the markets, maintaining market shares, and limiting themselves in contracting, and (...)
104
Relevant facts In the following judgement, the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic confirmed the decision of the Slovak Antimonopoly Office (hereinafter referred to as "Office") where the Office stated that the railway company Železničná spoločnosť a.s., later its successor, Železničná spoločnosť (...)
546
I. Relevant facts In the following decision, the Slovak Antimonopoly Office (Office) concluded that Slovak Telecom (ST) abused its dominant position by not granting access to the essential facility of a local network. The office forbid the infringement and imposed a fine in the amount of SKK (...)
490
I. Relevant facts In its Airport Bratislavadecision, the Slovak Antimonopoly Office stated that Letisko M.R.Štefánika - Airport Bratislava (Airport BA) abused its dominant position according to Article 8 (2) of the Competition Act, because it did not provide access to an airport apron at the (...)
512
I. Relevant facts In the following case, the Slovak Antimonopoly Office (Office) stated that the conduct of General Health Insurance Company (VZP) is not considered an abuse of the dominant position according to Article 8 (2) of the Slovak Competition Act. The Office investigated the (...)
68 rue Amelot
885 6th Avenue #32G
