Competition: Non-food retailers should review their contracts.

It is the last moment for non-food retailers to review contracts with their suppliers in order to adjust their provisions to the Unfair retailer practice prohibition law (“URPPL”), which will enter into force on 1 January 2016. Until then any relationship between suppliers and retailers is still being regulated by the Competition Law, which expressly prohibits abuse of dominance in retail trade (“ADR”). ADR mainly covered the retail industry’s food sector as the Competition Council (“CC”) has only once applied this legal concept towards non-food retailer, namely,  when it fined AS “Drogas”. Nevertheless, given the fact that our partners Debora Pāvila and Jūlija Jerņeva were actively involved in the discussions on drafting of URPPL, CC’s recently published guidelines on application of URPPL, we can foresee that at least one exemplary case will arise also in the non-food retail sector.

For more information in Latvian, please see our INSIDER.

by Debora Pāvila, Partner, Latvia

Related Lawyers

Gints Vilgerts

Partner, M&A

+371 29 107 768


Jūlija Jerņeva


+371 29 131 597


Related Experience

Defended a department store before the Consumer Rights Protection Centre in alleged price display breach for loyal customers.

Helped an energy company to explore ways of overturning the regulators ruling that the transmission system operator was not independent of its shareholders. The main challenge in the case was focusing on the fiduciary duties of the client’s management in managing the company while the shareholders are creating a conflict of interest and compliance risks.

Successfully defending owner of an airport hangar against claim brought by construction company regarding the owner’s refusal to pay for the defective construction works. On 14 January 2019 the district court adopted a judgement in favour of the client, which became effective as of 5 February 2019.

Representing an aviation company in an ongoing litigation regarding the repayment of investments. The company who received the funds later transferred its’ business in several coordinated transactions to a related company, and thereafter became insolvent. The client brought a claim against the recipient of the borrower’s business pursuant to Article 20 of Commercial Law.