The Competition Council of Latvia (the CC) has maintained its high three-star rating in the international Global Competition Review (GCR) rating for the eighth year in a row, ranking among the world's 32 leading competition institutions. The competition authorities of Belgium, Lithuania, Switzerland, Israel and other countries ranked in the same position as Latvia. Currently, there are competition supervisory authorities in more than 140 countries in the world, but only 32 of them have entered the GCR rating.
The 2022 ranking of the world's leading competition institutions emphasizes that the Latvian Competition Authority is one of the smallest competition institutions in Europe and at the same time has the smallest budget of all competition institutions included in the ranking. Despite this, it was stated that "it has proven itself as an effective enforcer of competition law."
The report pays special attention to the institution's fight against cartels, incl. last year's decisions in the case of the "Builders' cartel" and the re-found cartel in the land reclamation sector, as well as the fines in the amount of 17 million. The interviewed lawyers working in the private sector indicate that, taking into account the penalties applied and the impact on the economy caused by the involvement of almost all the largest construction companies in Latvia in a prohibited agreement over several years, the "Builders' cartel" case has been the highest-level case in the institution's history, which it has so far investigated.
In the rating, lawyers working in the private sector have positively assessed the institution's analytical skills in investigative cases, and special compliments have been given to the institution for its efficiency and the time devoted to investigations.
Evaluating the institution's work in the supervision of company mergers, it is emphasized that the institution evaluated three times more merger reports than the previous year. Private lawyers state that "the agency is adept at filtering out complex cases that require more work from simple cases that can be dealt with in a two-page decision and quickly disposed of." Also, lawyers working in the private sector have positively evaluated the institution's openness to negotiations when it comes to deadlines and requests for information in more complex merger cases.
Assessment of lawyers working in the private sector on the work of the CC
In addition to the star rating given by GCR experts, each country's independent competition law practitioners are surveyed, evaluating the performance of the competition authority in categories such as "the authority's success in court", "the legal powers available to the authority to prevent distortions of competition", "the authority's analytical skills", "investigations dedicated time", "the institution's available personnel and financial resources for the prevention of competition distortions", etc.
In the overall assessment, lawyers working in the private sector rated the Latvian Competition Authority with 3.6 points out of 5. Lawyers working in the private sector gave the Latvian Competition Authority the highest ratings for the institution's goals and ambitions (3.83 points out of 5), the available legal powers to address anticompetitive harm (3.83 points out of 5), and about the influence and advocacy tools to promote the development of fair competition in the market (3.83 points out of 5). Lawyers also highly rated the institution's success in court (3.67 points out of 5) and the institution's time devoted to investigations (3.67 points out of 5).
The prestigious ranking of the world's competition authorities is the main and only evaluator of the competitiveness and efficiency of the competition authorities themselves. It is published annually by GCR, the world's leading competition policy and law publication. This is already the 22nd quality rating, where institutions are evaluated on a two- to five-star system. The evaluation takes into account indicators such as the size of the institution, budget, staff, salary level, number, complexity and duration of the investigated cases, the amount of fines applied, issues of supervision of company mergers, the proportion of measures to promote the culture of competition in the institution's work, the institution's capacity to act, etc.