List of violators system


The Council issued resolution No. (49/2009), ordering the start of examination and investigation procedures, as well collection of evidences, as regards the possibility that Saudi Coca-Cola Bottling Co. violated any of the articles of Competition Law and prosecuting it if such violation exists.
On 22/2/1433 H, the case was referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against defendant.

The committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law issued resolution No. (131) penalizing Saudi Coca-Cola Bottling Co. for violating the Competition Law through  fixing and determining the prices of soft drinks.

The firm submitted a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the legal duration and the Administrative Court rejected the case and upheld the resolution of the hearing committee which is supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal; accordingly, the violating firm was defamed pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued resolution No. (29/2008) on 26/02/1429H, ordering examination and investigation procedures, as well collection of evidence, as regards the possibility that the companies producing the advanced medical gases which applied in the tender of supplying the requirements of Ministry of Health violated any of the Competition Law and prosecuting it if such violation exists.

On 19/11/1431H, the case was referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against defendant.


The committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law issued resolution No. (108) on 06/04/1433H penalizing Abdullah Mohammed Ba Jubair & Sons Company for Industrial Gas for committing the violation of Competition Law through the agreement among producers on complicity in the tender of Ministry of Health.

The firm submitted a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the legal duration and the Administrative Court rejected the case and upheld the resolution of the hearing committee which is supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal; accordingly, the violating firm was defamed pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued resolution No. (49/2009), ordering examination and investigation procedures, as well collection of evidence, as regards the possibility that Saudi Industrial Beverages Company (Bugshan) violated any of the articles of Competition Law and prosecuting it if such violation exists.
On 22/2/1433 H, the case was referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against defendant.
The committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law issued resolution No. (113) penalizing Saudi Industrial Beverages Company (Bugshan) for committing violations of the Competition Law through  fixing and determining the prices of soft drinks, compelling customers not to deal with another competitor, and imposing special terms regarding selling operations.
The firm submitted a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the legal duration and the Administrative Court rejected the case and upheld the resolution of the hearing committee which is supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal; accordingly, the violating firm was defamed pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued resolution No. (49/2009), ordering the start of examination and investigation procedures, as well collection of evidences, as regards the possibility that Saudi Coca-Cola Bottling Co. violated any of the articles of Competition Law and prosecuting it if such violation exists.
On 22/2/1433 H, the case was referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against defendant.
The committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law issued resolution No. (109) penalizing Saudi Coca-Cola Bottling Co. for violating the Competition Law through compelling customers not to deal with another competitor.
The firm submitted a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the legal duration and the Administrative Court rejected the case and upheld the resolution of the hearing committee which is supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal; accordingly, the violating firm was defamed pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued resolution No. (52/2010), ordering the start of examination and investigation procedures, as well collection of evidences, as regards the possibility that United Company for Sugar violated any of the articles of Competition Law and prosecuting it if such violation exists.
On 21/5/1432 H, the case was referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against defendant.
The committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law issued resolution No. (103) penalizing United Company for Sugar for violating the Competition Law through imposing special terms on sale or purchasing operations.
The firm submitted a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the legal duration and the Administrative Court rejected the case and upheld the resolution of the hearing committee that is supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal; accordingly, the violating firm was defamed pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued resolution No. (65/2011), ordering the start of examination and investigation procedures, as well collection of evidences, as regards the possibility that Saleh Abdulaziz Babaker Sons Co. for Trading violated any of the articles of Competition Law and prosecuting it if such violation exists.
On 24/6/1433 H, the case was referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against defendant.
The committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law issued resolution No. (124) penalizing Saleh Abdulaziz Babaker Sons Co. for Trading for violating the Competition Law through sharing markets and controlling prices of goods.
The firm submitted a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the legal duration and the Administrative Court rejected the case and upheld the resolution of the hearing committee that is supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal; accordingly, the violating firm was defamed pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued resolution No. (49/2009), ordering the start of examination and investigation procedures, as well collection of evidences, as regards the possibility that the Saudi Al Jomaih Bottling Co. violated any of the articles of Competition Law and prosecuting it if such violation exists.
On 22/2/1433 H, the case was referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against defendant.
The committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law issued resolution No. (111) penalizing Al Jomaih Holding Co. for committing violations of the Competition Law through  fixing and determining the prices of soft drinks, compelling customers not to deal with another competitor, and imposing special terms regarding selling operations.
The firm submitted a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the legal duration and the Administrative Court rejected the case and upheld the resolution of the hearing committee which is supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal; accordingly, the violating firm was defamed pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council has issued resolution No. (29/2008) on 26/02/1429H, ordering examination and searching procedures, as well record of statement, in addition to investigating in the possibility that the companies producing the advanced medical companies which applied in the tender of supplying the requirements of Ministry of Health violated any of the Competition Law and prosecuting it.

On 19/11/1431H, the case has been referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against defendant.

The committeehas issued in the violations of the Competition Law resolution No. (108) on 06/04/1433H by punishing Abdullah Bajbair & Sons Co. Company for committing the violation to Competition Law through the agreement among producers on complicity in the tender of Ministry of Health.

The firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the duration and the administrative Court has reject the case and asserted the resolution of Hearing and Determining Committee which supported by the administrative court of appeal, accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued resolution No. (29/2008) on 26/02/1429H, ordering examination and investigation procedures, as well collection of evidence, as regards the possibility that the companies producing the advanced medical gases which applied in the tender of supplying the requirements of Ministry of Health violated any of the Competition Law and prosecuting it if such violation exists.
On 19/11/1431 H, the case was referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against defendant.
The committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law issued resolution No. (107) on 06/04/1433H penalizing Abdullah Mohammed Ba Jubair & Sons Company for violating the Competition Law through agreement among producers on determining and fixing the prices of medical gases.
The firm submitted a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the legal duration and the Administrative Court rejected the case and upheld the resolution of the hearing committee which is supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal; accordingly, the violating firm was defamed pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued resolution No. (52/2010) on 19/01/1431 H, ordering the start of examination and investigation procedures, as well collection of evidence, as regards the possibility that United Company for Sugar violated any of the articles of Competition Law and prosecuting it if such violation exists.
On 21/5/1432 H, the case was referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against defendant.
The committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law issued resolution No. (104) on 8/03/1433 H penalizing United Company for Sugar for violating the Competition Law through obligating agents and distributors not to sell outside the Kingdom.
The firm submitted a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the legal duration and the Administrative Court rejected the case and upheld the resolution of the hearing committee which is supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal; accordingly, the violating firm was defamed pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued resolution No. (49/2009) on 27/12/1430H, ordering examination and investigation procedures, as well collection of evidence , as regards the possibility that Saudi Industrial Beverages Company (Bugshan) violated any of the articles of Competition Law and prosecuting it if such violation exists.
On 22/2/1433 H, the case was referred to the committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law.
The committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law issued resolution No. (131) on 6/02/1435 H penalizing  Saudi Industrial Beverages Company (Bugshan) for violating the Competition Law through agreement on increasing and fixing the prices of soft drinks.
The firm submitted a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the legal duration and the Administrative Court rejected the case and upheld the resolution of the hearing committee which is supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal; accordingly, the violating firm was defamed pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued resolution No. (49/2009) on 27/12/1430H, ordering the start of examination and investigation procedures, as well collection of evidences, as regards the possibility that the Saudi Al Jomaih Bottling Co. violated any of the articles of Competition Law and prosecuting it if such violation exists.
On 22/2/1433 H, the case was referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against defendant.
The committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law issued resolution No. (131) on 6/02/1435 H penalizing Aljomaih Holding Co. for violating the Competition Law through agreement on increasing and fixing the prices of soft drinks.
The firm submitted a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the legal duration and the Administrative Court rejected the case and upheld the resolution of the hearing committee which is supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal; accordingly, the violating firm was defamed pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued resolution No. (2008/29) on 26/2/1429 H, ordering examination and investigation procedures, as well collection of evidence, as regards the possibility that Abdullah Abdul Aziz Al Dakheel Company for Industrial and Medical Gases and the related parties violated any of the articles of Competition Law.

On 19/11/1431H, the case was referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against number of defendants.
The committee issued resolution No. (106), on 6/4/1433, as regards the violations of Competition Law, penalizing the defendants including Abdullah Abdul Aziz Al Dakheel Company for Industrial and Medical Gases for violating the agreement among producers on sharing markets and regions  in the tender of Ministry of Health.
 
The firm submitted a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the legal duration and the Administrative Court rejected the case and upheld the resolution of the hearing committee which is supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal; accordingly, the violating firm was defamed pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council has issued the resolution No. (50/2010) on 19/01/1431H, stating to the continuous examination and searching procedures, as well record of statement and investigating the possibility that the companies producing the advanced medical gases in the tender of supplying the needs of Ministry of Health violated any of the article of Competition Law.

On 19/11/1431H, the case has been referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against number of defendants.

The committee has issued its resolution No. (106) on 06/04/1433H by punishing Riyadh Oxygen Plant
 for committing the violation to the agreement among producers on complicity in the tender of Ministry of Health which under punishment as per the fourth article of the Competition Law and applying for the Competition Law .

The firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the duration and the administrative Court has rejected the case and asserted the resolution of Hearing and Determining Committee which supported by the administrative court of appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council has issued the resolution No. (49/2009) on 27/12/1430H, by starting in taking examination and searching procedures, as well record of statement, in addition to investigating the possibility that some producers and filler of soft drinks violated any of the articles of Competition Law.

On 20/2/1433H, the council has issued its resolution No. (67/2012) for starting the penal claim procedures before the committee of hearing the violations of the competitions law against the violating firms.

The committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law has issued the resolution No. (112) on 15/7/1433H by punishing Abdel Hadi A. ALQahtani & Sons Company for committing a number of violations of Competition Law. In application of the Competition Law, the firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the duration and the administrative Court has rejected the case and asserted the resolution of the committee which supported by the administrative court of appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council has issued the resolution No. (79/2012) on 19/3/1433 H, ordering examination and searching procedures, as well record of statement, in addition to investigating the possibility that Ready-mix Concrete and Bricks factories in Hail Region, and the related parties violated any of the article of Competition Law .

On 21/7/1433H, the case has been referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against number of defendants.
The committee has issued a resolution No. (118) on 17/03/1434H by punishing Hail for Ready-mix Concrete Factory for violating the agreement among the concrete factories in Hail region for fixing the prices of concrete and blocks.
The firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the duration and the administrative Court has rejected the case and asserted the resolution of hearing committee. In addition, the judgement became final and enforceable by passing the duration of appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council has issued the resolution No. (2012/79) on 19/3/1433 H, ordering examination and searching procedures, as well record of statement, in addition to investigating the possibility that Ready-mix Concrete and Bricks factories in Hail Region, and the related parties violated any of the article of Competition Law .

On 21/7/1433H, the case has been referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against number of defendants.

The committee has issued a resolution No. (118) on 17/03/1434H by punishing Airaf Premixed Concrete & Blocks Factory for violating the agreement among the concrete factories in Hail region for fixing the prices of concrete and blocks.

The firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the duration and the administrative Court has rejected the case and asserted the resolution of Hearing and Determining Committee. In addition, the judgment became final and enforceable by passing the duration of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council has issued the resolution No. (79/2012) on 19/3/1433 H, ordering examination and searching procedures, as well record of statement, in addition to investigating the possibility that Ready-mix Concrete and Bricks factories in Hail Region, and the related parties violated any of the article of Competition Law .

On 21/7/1433H, the case has been referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against number of defendants.

The committee has issued a resolution No. (118) on 17/03/1434H by punishing Al Alyan for Ready-mix Concrete Factory for violating the agreement among the concrete factories in Hail region for fixing the prices of concrete and blocks.

The firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the duration and the administrative Court has rejected the case and affirmed the resolution of committee, which was supported by the administrative court of appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council has issued the resolution No. (29/2008) on 26/02/1429H, stating to the continuous examination and searching procedures, as well record of statement and investigating the possibility that the companies producing the advanced medical gases in the tender of supplying the needs of Ministry of Health violated any of the article of Competition Law

On 19/11/1431H, the case has been referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against number of defendants.

The committee of hearing the violations of the Competition Law issued resolution No. (107) on 06/04/1433H by punishing Abdullah Hashim Industrial Gases & Equipment Co. for Industrial and Medical Gases for violating the agreement among producers on fixing and determining the prices of medical gases which under punishment as per the fourth article of the Competition Law and applying for the Competition Law .

The firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the duration and the administrative Court has rejected the case and asserted the resolution of the committee, which was supported by the administrative court of appeal, accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to Article twelve of the Competition Law.
The Council has issued the resolution No. (62/2011) on 24/02/1432H, ordering examination and searching procedures, as well record of statement, in addition to investigating the possibility that Saudi Telecom Company violated any of the article of Competition Law and prosecuting it.

On 20/2/1433H, the case has been referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against number of defendants.

The committee has issued its resolution No. (123) on 16/44/1434H by punishing Saudi Telecom Company (STC) for misusing its dominating position through withholding services for clients competitors (Non-activation of number portability service, and not to pass international calls).

The firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the duration and the administrative Court has rejected the case and asserted the resolution of Hearing and Determining Committee which is supported by the administrative court of appeal, accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council has issued the resolution No. (65/2011) on 24/4/1432H, ordering examination and searching procedures, as well record of statement, in addition to investigating the possibility that some traders and importers in addition to the parties related to rice violated any of the article of Competition Law and prosecuting it.

On 23/6/1433H, the case has been referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against number of defendants.

The committee has issued its resolution No. (121) on 9/4/1434H by punishing Mayar Foods Company, (formerly Al-Muhaidib Foods) for violating the Competition Law through fixing and determining the prices of selling rice and imposing a minimum price for resale ....

The firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the duration and the administrative Court has rejected the case and affirmed the resolution of committee, which was supported by the administrative court of appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council has issued the resolution No. (65/2011) on 24/4/1432H, ordering examination and searching procedures, as well record of statement, in addition to investigating the possibility of some traders and importers in addition to the parties related to rice violated any of the article of Competition Law and prosecuting it.

On 24/6/1433H, the case has been referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against number of defendants.

The committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law has issued its resolution No. (122) on 16/4/1434H by punishing Ahmed Al Mahroos & Son's Company for violating the Competition Law through fixing and determining the prices of selling rice to the sale points.

The firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the duration and the administrative Court has rejected the case and affirmed the resolution of the committee, which was supported by the administrative court of appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council has issued the resolution No. (49/2009) on 24/04/1432H, ordering examination and searching procedures, as well record of statement, in addition to investigating the possibility of Saudi Industrial Projects Company violated any of the article of Competition Law and prosecuting it.

On 22/2/1433H, the case has been referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against defendant.

The committeeof hearing violations of the Competition Law issued resolution No. (113) on 15/7/1433H by punishing Industrial Saudi beverages Company (Bugshan) for committing the violation for the Competition Law through the agreement among producers on sharing markets and regions.

The firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the duration and the administrative Court has reject the case and asserted the resolution of Hearing and Determining Committee which supported by the administrative court of appeal, accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council has issued the resolution No. (65/11) on 24/04/1432H, ordering examination and searching procedures, as well record of statement, in addition to investigating the possibility that Abdel Rahman and Mohamed Aabd Al Aziz Al Shaalan violated any of the articles of Competition Law and prosecuting it.

On 23/6/1433H, the case has been referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against defendant.

The committee of hearing violations of Competition Law has issued its resolution No. (119) on 2/4/1434H by punishing Abdel Rahman and Mohamed Aabd Al Aziz Al Shaalan Company for violating the Competition Law through fixing and determining the prices of selling the rice to the sale points.

The firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the duration and the administrative Court has reject the case and asserted the resolution of Hearing and Determining Committee which supported by the administrative court of appeal, accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The committee has issued resolution No. (108) on 06/04/1433H by punishing Abdullah Abdel Aziz Al Dakheel Company for Industrial and Medical Gases for violating the agreement among producers on complicity in the tender of Ministry of Health which under punishment as per article (4) of the Competition Law and applying for the Competition Law.

The firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the duration and the administrative Court has rejected the case and asserted the resolution of the committee, which was supported by the administrative court of appeal, accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to Article twelve of the Competition Law.
The Council has issued the resolution No. (65/2011) on 24/04/1432A.H., stating to start in taking examination and searching procedures, as well record of statement, in addition to investigating the possibility of some traders and importers in addition to the parties related to the rice violated any of the articles of Competition Law and prosecuting it.



The committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law has issued its resolution No. (120) on 09/04/1434H by punishing defendant Omer Ali Balsharaf Trading Est for committing violation of the Competition Law through fixing and determining the prices of selling the rice to the sale points.

The firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the duration and the administrative Court has rejected the case and asserted the resolution of the committee, which was supported by the administrative court of appeal, accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to Article twelve of the Competition Law.
Abdullah Abdel Aziz Al Dakheel company for Industrial and Medical gases
On 19/11/1431H, the case has been referred to the committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against number of defendants.
The Council has issued the resolution No. (50/2010) on 19/01/1431H, ordering examination and searching procedures, as well record of statement, in addition to investigating the possibility that the companies producing the advanced medical gases which applied for the tender of supplying the requirements of Ministry of Health violated any of the Competition Law and prosecuting it.

On 19/11/1431H, the case has been referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against defendant.

The committeehas issued in the violations of the Competition Law resolution No. (106) on 06/04/1434H by punishing Industrial Gases Company (SIGAS) for committing the violation for the Competition Law through the agreement among producers on sharing markets and regions in the tender of Ministry of Health.

The firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the duration and the administrative Court has reject the case and asserted the resolution of Hearing and Determining Committee which supported by the administrative court of appeal, accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council has issued the resolution No. (65/2011) on 24/04/1432H, stating to start in taking examination and searching procedures, as well record of statement, in addition to investigating the possibility that Al Nafee Trading Holding violated any of the articles of Competition Law and prosecuting it.

On 13/7/1433H, the case has been referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against the defendant.

The committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law has issued its resolution No. (126) on 30/4/1434H by punishing Al Nafee Trading Holding for violating the Competition Law through fixing the conditions of sale by conditioning non-selling the rice to wholesalers or central markets.

The firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the duration and the administrative Court has reject the case and asserted the resolution of Hearing and Determining Committee which supported by the administrative court of appeal, accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council has issued resolution No. (29/2008) on 26/02/1429H, ordering examination and searching procedures, as well record of statement, in addition to investigating in the possibility that the companies producing the advanced medical companies which applied in the tender of supplying the requirements of Ministry of Health violated any of the Competition Law and prosecuting it.

On 19/11/1431H, the case has been referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against defendant.

The committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law has issued its resolution No. (101) on 14/02/1432H by punishing Gofco for Industrial Gases Factory for committing violation of the Competition Law through agreement among producers on determining and fixing the prices of medical gases.

The firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the duration and the administrative Court has reject the case and asserted the resolution of Hearing and Determining Committee which supported by the administrative court of appeal, accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council has issued the resolution No. (65/2011) on 26/02/1432A.H., ordering examination and searching procedures, as well record of statement, in addition to investigating the possibility that some traders and importers in addition to the parties related to rice violated any of the articles of Competition Law and prosecuting it.
On 13/7/1433H, the case has been referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against the defendant.
The committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law has issued its resolution No. (125) on 23/04/1434H by punishing Omar Kassem Alesayi & Co. for Marketing Ltd for committing violation of the Competition Law through fixing and determining the prices of selling the rice to the sale points.
The firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the duration and the administrative Court has reject the case and asserted the resolution of Hearing and Determining Committee which supported by the administrative court of appeal, accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council has issued the resolution No. (29/2008) on 26/02/1429H, stating to start in taking examination and searching procedures, as well record of statement, in addition to investigating the possibility that the companies producing the advanced medical companies which applied in the tender of supplying the requirements of Ministry of Health violated any of the Competition Law and prosecuting it.
On 19/11/1431H, the case has been referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against defendant.
The committeehas issued in the violations of the Competition Law, resolution No. (106) on 06/04/1433H by punishing Airleked Khafrah Company for committing the violation for the Competition Law through the agreement among producers on complicity in the tender of Ministry of Health.
The firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the duration and the administrative Court has reject the case and asserted the resolution of Hearing and Determining Committee which supported by the administrative court of appeal, accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.

The Council has issued resolution No. (29/2008) on 26/02/1429H, ordering examination and searching procedures, as well record of statement, in addition to investigating in the possibility that the companies producing the advanced medical companies which applied in the tender of supplying the requirements of Ministry of Health violated any of the Competition Law and prosecuting it.

On 19/11/1431H, the case has been referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against defendant.

The committeehas issued in the violations of the Competition Law it's resolution No. (108) on 06/04/1433H by punishing Airleked Khafrah Company for committing the violation the Competition Law through the agreement among producers on complicity in the tender of Ministry of Health.

The firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the duration and the administrative Court has reject the case and asserted the resolution of Hearing and Determining Committee which supported by the administrative court of appeal, accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.

The Council has issued resolution No. (29/2008) on 26/02/1429H, ordering examination and searching procedures, as well record of statement, in addition to investigating in the possibility that the companies producing the advanced medical companies which applied in the tender of supplying the requirements of Ministry of Health violated any of the Competition Law and prosecuting it.
On 19/11/1431H, the case has been referred to committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law against defendant.
The committee of hearing the violations of Competition Law has issued its resolution No. (107) on 06/04/1433H by punishing Airleked Khafrah Company for committing violation of the Competition Law through agreement among producers on determining and fixing the prices of medical gases.
The firm has complained before the Board of Grievances within the statutory period and the Administrative Court has rejected the case and asserted the resolution of Settlement Committee, which was upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm has been defamed in pursuant to Article No. (12) of the Competition Law.