Robert Neruda is the head of the team of lawyers and economists specialising in competition law. He attended Masaryk University. He focuses on advising clients relating to cartels, abuse of dominance, assessment of mergers and acquisitions from a competition perspective, significant market power, state aid, and public procurement. He typically represents clients in proceedings related to the concentration of 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 specialises in the compensation of damage caused by anti-competitive conduct. Prior to joining Havel, he served eight years at the Czech Office for the Protection of Competition, and most recently two years as its Antitrust Vice-Chair. He is a co-author of the commentary on the Competition Act and the commentary on the Public Procurement Act, and he regularly lectures at international conferences. As an expert in competition law, he has been recommended by several international publications: "The International Who’s Who of Competition Lawyers & Economists", "PLC Which Lawyer?", "ILO Client Choice", and "Chambers Europe Guide". Robert was named a Competition Thought Leader by the prestigious British agency "Who’s Who Legal". In the Czech Republic, he was named an innovative lawyer of 2017. Robert is practicing competition law both in the Czechia and Slovakia.
137
Does the Directive on Unfair Trading Practices Change Anything? The Directive on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain has been adopted recently. For a long time, this sector has been on the radar of EU bodies, as sufficient (...)
374
European Commission changed its preliminary view on the inspection in Slovak rail company ZSSK and closed the infringement proceedings* On 25 September 2018, the European Commission (“ Commission ”) published a press release that it sent a statement of objections to Slovak rail company ZSSK for (...)
193
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 (...)
159
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 (...)
87
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 (...)
181
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 (...)
728
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 (...)
646
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 (...)
578
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 (...)
569
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 (...)
19 avenue Jean Aicard
75011 Paris, France
106 West 32nd Street, Suite 149
New York, NY, 10001, USA
563 Chiswick High Road
W4 3AY London, UK