All articles

The court overturned the fine imposed on "Odeskumtrans" by the Antimonopoly Committee.

The court overturned the fine imposed on "Odeskumtrans" by the Antimonopoly Committee.

The Economic Court of Odesa Oblast invalidated the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee regarding a fine for КП «Одескомунтранс». The court ruled that the AMC failed to consider the activities of other participants in the market for the removal of household waste in the Khadjibaysky district of Odesa and incorrectly determined that the municipal enterprise was the sole monopolist.

The Economic Court of the Odesa region overturned the decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (ACM) to impose a fine on the municipal enterprise "Odescomunts". The court concluded that the ACM did not take into account the activities of other market participants in the Chaidybey district of Odesa.

The court ruled that the State Anti-Monopoly Committee (AMKU) incorrectly determined that "Odeskumtrans" was the only company providing waste removal services in this area. During the proceedings, contracts, letters from private companies, and documents from the local administration were examined. It was found that other companies, including "Clear-City," "Eco-Leader," "Raf-plus," and "Eco-grad," also provide waste removal services to apartment buildings and businesses in the Khadjibey district.

The decision of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine from May 29, 2026, recognized "Odeskumtrans" as a monopolist in the market for managing household waste in the Khadjibaysky district of Odesa. The committee concluded that the municipal services were abusing their position by applying an inflated rate of 129 Ukrainian hryvnias per cubic meter instead of the 127.97 Ukrainian hryvnias approved by the city council. As a result, the company was fined 68,000 Ukrainian hryvnias and ordered to cease the violation.

Representatives of КП «Odeskomunts» disagreed with the position of the AMKU and challenged the decision in court. They explained that they do not have a monopoly, as other private service providers also operate in the area. They justified the difference in service costs for individual consumers by charging a subscription fee.