Summary

Although a formal explanation for the need to adopt a Competition Act is provided by the Europe Agreement which prescribes the law approximation requirement, particularly in the field of competition, the Competition Act is necessary in order to ensure free self realisation and to achieve the equal protection of property in the Republic of Estonia. The author is doubtful whether the draftsmen of the Act have kept this principle in mind: the convoluted wording of the Act, use of vague terminology and the criteria provided by the Act do not facilitate a speedy implementation thereof. For example, the author considers the definition of competition vague and not in conformity with the competition theory. Further, the Act fails to define properly the concept of commercial undertaking as the subject of the Act. Furthermore, the definition of market for goods is insufficient. At the same time, the provisions regulating prohibited concerted practices provide too large a scope of application. The author also points to shortcomings in the provisions governing the market dominant position which underline the mechanical criterion of 40 per cent of the market share but ignore other criteria for the definition of market. In addition to the abovementioned problems, the author focuses on deficiencies concerning the regulation of control of state aid and merger of companies.
In the author’s opinion, one of the reasons for gaps in the Competition Act is the wish of the draftsmen to transpose the provisions of the Treaty Establishing the European Community and to add explanations and recommendations from the Commission. However, the draftsmen seem to be lacking in a comprehensive understanding of EC law and the needs of Estonia. As a result, we have an Act which does not provide a clear model of behaviour for its implementation.