Provisions on the determination of the acts of abuse of dominant/monopoly position Sample Clauses

Provisions on the determination of the acts of abuse of dominant/monopoly position. 3.3.1. The differentiation between the acts of abuse of dominant position and the acts of abuse of monopoly position has not been consistent with reality As described in subsection 1 above, Vietnam Competition Law has put monopoly enterprises under stricter supervision on the acts of abuse than enterprises with dominant market position. In addition to the acts prohibited under Article 13 of Competition Law, monopolists are also prohibited from performing two additional acts under Clause 2 and 3, Article 14n including the act of imposing unfavorable conditions on customers and the act of abusing monopoly position to unilaterally change or cancel contracts already signed without plausible reason. The acts above mainly violate the rights of customers and the principle of equality in the contracts that were or will be signed between the monopolists and their customers, partners. Therefore, we can speculate that the basis to establish Clause 2 and 3 of Article 14 is an unbalanced state between monopolists and customers, partners. The choice of consumers and customers will not exist if there is monopoly in the market. The consequence is that customers will always be in a vulnerable position in the transaction because their demand is dependent on the capacity and supply decision of the monopolist. To prevent the possibility of exploiting monopoly position, violating the principle of equality of contract law, Competition Law prohibits monopoly enterprises from imposing unfavorable conditions on customers and unilaterally changing or cancelling contracts already signed without plausible reason. However, in reality, the acts above can occur in any business environment that is defective in competition, especially when there is an enterprise with market power. Therefore, the possibility of harming the legitimate rights and interests of customers or harming the principle of equality protected by contract law through these acts can occur even when there is only enterprise with dominant position (not monopoly) and can cause negative impact to competition in the market. In competition cases relating to Vietnam Aviation Petrol (Vinapco), competition authorities thought that at the time of review (April 2008), since Vinapco had monopoly position in the aviation fuel supply service market (there is no enterprises competing with Vinapco in the market), the act imposing unfavorable conditions on customers and abusing monopoly position to unilaterally change or cancel contracts...