VILNIUS, May 4, 2026 — Lithuania’s competition authority, Competition Council, said it will appeal a court decision overturning its earlier finding of an anti-competitive agreement involving a supplements supplier and its distributors.
The move follows a ruling by the Regional Administrative Court, which sided with several companies and concluded that the authority had failed to prove the existence of a competition-restricting agreement.
Dispute over alleged resale price maintenance
The case concerns Giantera, the official representative of the “Dr. Ohhira” brand in Lithuania, and 19 distributors of its products.
In a 2024 decision, the Competition Council found that Giantera and its distributors had agreed not to sell food supplements and cosmetics below supplier-set prices, effectively banning discounts and promotions.
The authority imposed total fines of €1.42 million, with reductions granted to some companies that admitted wrongdoing.
Court rejects competition authority’s findings
However, the court ruled that the Competition Council did not sufficiently demonstrate that the agreement was intended to restrict competition, arguing that the authority’s conclusions were inconsistent with case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Five companies had challenged the decision, leading to the annulment.
Authority to challenge ruling
The Competition Council said it disagrees with the court’s reasoning and will take the case to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania.
The appeal sets the stage for further legal scrutiny of resale price maintenance practices, which remain a key enforcement area across the EU.
The outcome could clarify how national authorities must prove anti-competitive intent in vertical agreements under European competition law.
