In recent months, Serbia witnessed a rise in mobile telephony prices affecting the majority of its citizens. By April, users across the board, including those subscribed to the third operator services, found themselves paying more. Over a span of just two months, mobile phone usage became notably more expensive, whether users were forewarned through fine print or clear notifications.
In response to public outcry, the Competition Protection Commission was urged to investigate whether this price hike signaled cartel behavior. Nearly four months later, the Commission’s verdict arrived: no evidence of Telekom, Yettel and A1 breaching competition laws was found. Insufficient grounds existed to initiate regulatory proceedings ex officio.
The municipality, via its portal, detailed “outcomes of initiatives related to the mobile telephony market.” They learned, based on publicly available data in February and March, of all three mobile operators’ intentions to increase service prices.
“The Commission received several initiatives regarding potential competition violations,” the Commission acknowledged. “Responding to these concerns, the Commission rigorously examined the regulatory framework, publicly available data, and obtained statements from all three mobile operators in Serbia.”
Everyone notified authorities under the Law on Consumer Protection and Electronic Communications, operators are required to notify users in advance of any price changes. According to the Commission, all three operators complied.
“Based on publicly available data, it was confirmed that all operators announced their price increases in advance, using various public notification methods, 30 days prior to implementation,” the Commission clarified. “Operators also indicated consultation with the National Consumer Organization of Serbia or notified the Regulatory Body for Electronic Communications and Postal Services in advance through formal communication.”
The Commission stressed it did not assess whether these notifications fully complied with regulations or were adequate, but focused on improving market transparency. “Oligopolistic markets, like Serbia’s mobile telephony market, are susceptible to coordinated actions among competitors,” the Commission noted. “In this context, the timing and scale of price increase announcements were scrutinized, especially in light of media reports suggesting synchronized actions and past pricing behaviors.”
Regarding price change notifications, the Commission found all operators adhered to legal requirements by announcing new price lists 30 days ahead, concluding no irregularities there.
“Based on data submitted by all operators (sequence of announcements, published documentation, etc.), no evidence suggested a pre-existing agreement on price increases,” the Commission affirmed.
Unequal price increases Similarly, the Commission found disparities in the percentages and amounts of price increases among the operators.
“Analysis revealed no reasonable basis to assume a prior agreement on these aspects,” the report stated. “Comparisons across packages and average increases showed variations across all three operators.”
The Commission also reviewed past behaviors for patterns during previous price hikes but found no conclusive evidence.
Operators had publicly disclosed and published price increases 30 days in advance, aligning with consumer and communications laws.
“Despite deviations from past notification methods during previous price hikes,” the Commission noted, “no evidence suggested collusive behavior during the review period.”
Insufficient grounds for action “Based on the evidence gathered, no direct or indirect collusion was established,” the Commission concluded. “Thus, in highly concentrated markets, a single price increase, not part of a coordinated agreement, varying in timing and amount, and duly communicated to consumer organizations and regulatory bodies, does not meet the legal threshold for initiating ex officio proceedings under Article 35 of the Competition Law.”
In summary, while consumers may collectively face higher costs for mobile services, the Commission’s investigation did not substantiate claims of collusion among operators.
