[ad_1]
In the study, it looked at 2018. and 2019. Palink’s supplier contracts also revealed that although the marketing budget was stated as preliminary, the company required emails from 7 suppliers to use the agreed-upon marketing budget at the end of the year. .
In his letters, Palink instructed suppliers to submit proposals on how the unused marketing budget established in the contracts would be spent (‘<...> you need an updated marketing plan on how to spend your unused marketing budget by the end of 2018 <...>) Requests were made to make proposals to use the end-of-year marketing budget (‘the<...> This promotional grid is inappropriate: you will not be able to use your budget “), information was provided on the unused budget balance.
The fact that the marketing budget of the size specified in the contracts was binding on suppliers is also confirmed in the letters on possible negative measures against suppliers, such as the suspension of purchases, the rejection of large quantities during the holiday period, the inability to do individual actions (‘<...> Since the problem of using the marketing budget has not been resolved, you have ignored all Palink offers – purchases are suspended! <...>“).
A retailer with significant market power and a supplier are not prevented from agreeing on an indicative amount for the planned marketing budget, but such a preliminary agreement on operations should not become a mandatory requirement, as in the present case.
By forcing suppliers to use the promotional budget, Palink has violated the legal prohibition on requiring suppliers to pay or reimburse part of the retail company or its promotional costs, unless the amount of costs to pay and promotional costs Expected Shares are the subject of a written agreement.
Such mandatory supplier participation in the promotional activities required by the company could not necessarily have been in the supplier’s interest as the weakest party to the contract, as it would have been free to plan its own promotional activities without putting pressure on the marketing budget.
Palink, which the law requires to demonstrate that vendor agreements comply with the law, has not demonstrated this. For breach of the provisions of said law, 78 thousand. a fine of euros.
Mindaugas Tamošiūnas, Head of the Grocery, Beverage and Non-Food Department of the Iki retail chain’s Trade and Marketing Service, says the company will appeal the council’s decision. Comment on the situation as follows:
“This decision surprised us: the Competition Council itself concluded during the investigation that our sales contracts with suppliers do not violate the requirements of legal acts, and a separate written agreement was concluded for each marketing service. In addition, during the In their investigation, all suppliers indicated that they were not pressured or encouraged to use the tentatively planned quantity for marketing measures.
Additionally, we operate in strict compliance with the law, respect our business partners, and maintain productive business relationships with suppliers. As usual in business, we negotiate with them in order to offer our customers the best range of products and the best prices.
During the investigation, we cooperate with representatives of the Competition Council and provide them with information in good faith. After reading the published decision in detail, we will decide whether to appeal it. “
[ad_2]
