List of violators system


The Council issued its resolution no. (65/2011), dated 24/04/1432H, providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation and prosecution against Omar Kassem Alesayi & Co. for Marketing Ltd. For its potential violation of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 23/06/1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (129), dated 19/11/1434H, penalizing Omar Kassem Alesayi & Co. for Marketing Ltd. for violation of the Competition Law by concluding an agreement with a number of companies to impose special terms on selling operations with central markets.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.

The Council issued its resolution no. (49/2009), dated 27/12/1430H, providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation and prosecution against Al Jomaih Bottling Company for its potential violation of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 22/02/1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (132), dated 06/02/1435H, penalizing Al Jomaih Holding Co. for violation of the Competition Law by agreement on sharing markets and regions.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued Resolution No. (2011/58) dated 1432/1 / 29H, to "undertake procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of companies that provide technical assistance and support to the bottlers of soft drinks in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as well as the parties involved in violating any of the provisions of the Competition Law."

On 22/2 / 1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its Decision No. (110) dated 13/7/1433H penalizing Beverage Services Inc. for violating the Competition Law by fixing and setting the prices for the sale of soft drinks, forcing client not to deal with another competitor, and imposing special requirements on sales operations.

The company filed a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the statutory period. The Administrative Court issued its ruling dismissing the case and upholding the decision of the Adjudication Committee; later, the decision was also upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating entity was named and shamed pursuant to Article 12 of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (49/2009), dated 27/12/1430H, providing for taking procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation and prosecution against companies that provide technical assistance and support to the bottlers of soft drinks in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as well as the parties involved in violating any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 22/02/1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.


The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (131), dated 06/02/1435H, penalizing Beverage Services Inc. for violation of the Competition Law through agreement on increasing and fixing the prices of soft drinks.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its Decision No. (2011/65) dated 14/4/1432H to continue procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by some traders
importers and parties engaged in the rice business of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 23/6/1433H, the case against a number of defendants was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its Decision No. (129) dated 1434/11/19H, penalizing the defendant Omar Bin Ali Balsharaf Establishment for violating the Competition Law by agreeing with the competitors to control the selling prices of rice.

The company filed a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the statutory period. The Administrative Court issued its ruling dismissing the case and upholding the decision of the Adjudication Committee; later, the decision was also upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating entity was named and shamed pursuant to Article 12 of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its Resolution No. (2008/29) dated 26/2/1429H, to continue procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by companies producing advanced medical gases of any of the provisions of the Competition Law in connection with a Ministry of Health's tender.

On 19/11/1431H, the case against a number of defendants was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

In implementation of the Competition Law, the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its Decision No. (108) dated 6/4/1433H penalizing the defendants, including Abdullah Hashim Industrial Equipment Co., for committing the violation of bid-rigging in a Ministry of Health’s tender, which is punishable under Article 4 of the Competition Law.

The company filed a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the statutory period. The Administrative Court issued its ruling dismissing the case and upholding the decision of the Adjudication Committee; later, the decision was also upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating entity was named and shamed pursuant to Article 12 of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (29/2008) dated 26/2/1429H, to continue procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by companies producing advanced medical gases of any of the provisions of the Competition Law in connection with a Ministry of Health tender.

On 19/11/1431H, the case was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations against a number of defendants.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (108), dated 06/04/1433H, penalizing the defendants, including Abdullah Hashim Industrial Equipment Co. for committing the violation of agreement with a number of producers on complicity in connection with a Ministry of Health tender, which is punishable under Article 4 of the Competition Law

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its Resolution No. (2008/29) dated 26/2/1429H, to continue procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by companies producing advanced medical gases of any of the provisions of the Competition Law in connection with a Ministry of Health's tender.

On 19/11/1431H, the case against a number of defendants was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

In implementation of the Competition Law, the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its Decision No. (106) dated 6/4/1433H penalizing the defendants, including Abdullah Hashim Industrial Equipment Co., for agreeing to divide markets and regions between producers in a Ministry of Health’s tender, which is punishable under Article 4 of the Competition Law.

The company filed a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the statutory period. The Administrative Court issued its ruling dismissing the case and upholding the decision of the Adjudication Committee; later, the decision was also upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating entity was named and shamed pursuant to Article 12 of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (29/2008) dated 26/2/1429H, providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by companies producing advanced medical gases of any of the provisions of the Competition Law in connection with a tender for supplying the needs of the Ministry of Health.

On 19/11/1431H, the case was referred against the defendant to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (108), dated 06/04/1433H, penalizing the Gofco for Industrial Gases Factory for violation of the Competition Law by agreeing with producers on complicity in connection with a Ministry of Health tender.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its Resolution No. (2012/79) dated 19/3/1433H, to undertake procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by Al-Luhaidan Block & Ready-Mix Concrete Factory of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 21/7 / 1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its Decision No. (118) dated 1434/3/17H, penalizing Al-Luhaidan Block & Ready-Mix Concrete Factory for violating the Competition Law by agreeing on a minimum price.

The company filed a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the statutory period. The Administrative Court issued its ruling dismissing the case and upholding the decision of the Adjudication Committee; later, the decision was also upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating entity was named and shamed pursuant to Article 12 of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its Resolution No. (2011/65) dated 24/4/1432H, to undertake procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by Mayar Foods Co. (formerly Al Muhaidib Foods Company) of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 23/6 / 1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its Decision No. (128) dated 1434/11/19H, penalizing Mayar Foods Co. (formerly Al Muhaidib Foods Company) for violating the Competition Law by agreeing with the competitors to control the selling prices of rice.

The company filed a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the statutory period. The Administrative Court issued its ruling dismissing the case and upholding the decision of the Adjudication Committee; later, the decision was also upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating entity was named and shamed pursuant to Article 12 of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its Resolution No. (2011/65) dated 24/4/1432H, to undertake procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by Saeed bin Ahmed Al-Mahrous & Sons Co. of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 23/6 / 1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its Decision No. (129) dated 1434/11/19H, penalizing Saeed bin Ahmed Al-Mahrous & Sons Co. for violating the Competition Law by agreeing with the competitors to control the selling prices of rice.

The company filed a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the statutory period. The Administrative Court issued its ruling dismissing the case and upholding the decision of the Adjudication Committee; later, the decision was also upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating entity was named and shamed pursuant to Article 12 of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its Resolution No. (2009/49) dated 27/12/1430H, to undertake procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by Abdulhadi Abdullah Al-Qahtani & Sons Beverage Industry of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 22/2 / 1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its Decision No. (112) dated 1433/7/15H, penalizing Abdulhadi Abdullah Al-Qahtani & Sons Beverage Industry for violating the Competition Law by agreeing by agreeing to raise and fix the price of soft drinks.

The company filed a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the statutory period. The Administrative Court issued its ruling dismissing the case and upholding the decision of the Adjudication Committee; later, the decision was also upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating entity was named and shamed pursuant to Article 12 of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its Resolution No. (2008/29) dated 29/02/1429H, to undertake procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by DIGAS of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.
On 19/11/1431H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its Decision No. (107) dated 1433/04/06H, penalizing DIGAS for violating the Competition Law by agreeing with the producers to set and fix the selling prices of medical gases.

The company filed a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the statutory period. The Administrative Court issued its ruling dismissing the case and upholding the decision of the Adjudication Committee; later, the decision was also upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating entity was named and shamed pursuant to Article 12 of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (65/2011), dated 24/04/1432H, providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation and prosecution against Omar Kassem Alesayi & Co. for Marketing Ltd. for its potential violation of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 23/06/1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (129), dated 19/11/1434H, penalizing Omar Kassem Alesayi & Co. for Marketing Ltd. for violation of the Competition Law by agreeing with the competitors to control the selling prices of rice.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its Resolution No. (2011/65) dated 24/4/1432H, to undertake procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by Saleh Abdulaziz Ba-Bakr Sons Trading & Contracting Company of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 23/6 / 1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its Decision No. (129) dated 1434/11/19H, penalizing Saleh Abdulaziz Ba-Bakr Sons Trading & Contracting Company for violating the Competition Law by agreeing with the competitors to control the selling prices of rice.

The company filed a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the statutory period. The Administrative Court issued its ruling dismissing the case and upholding the decision of the Adjudication Committee; later, the decision was also upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating entity was named and shamed pursuant to Article 12 of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its Resolution No. (2011/65) dated 24/4/1432H, to undertake procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by Al Nafeh Holding Company of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 23/6 / 1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its Decision No. (129) dated 1434/11/19H, penalizing Al-Nafea Holding Company for violating the Competition Law by agreeing with the competitors to control the selling prices of rice.

The company filed a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the statutory period. The Administrative Court issued its ruling dismissing the case and upholding the decision of the Adjudication Committee; later, the decision was also upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating entity was named and shamed pursuant to Article 12 of the Competition Law.
The Council issued Resolution No. (2009/49) dated 1430/12 / 29H, to "undertake procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of companies that provide technical assistance and support to the bottlers of soft drinks in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as well as the parties involved in violating any of the provisions of the Competition Law."

On 22/2 / 1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its Decision No. (131) dated 1435/2/15H, penalizing Beverage Services Inc. for violating the Competition Law by fixing and setting the prices for the sale of soft drinks.

The company filed a complaint before the Board of Grievances within the statutory period. The Administrative Court issued its ruling dismissing the case and upholding the decision of the Adjudication Committee; later, the decision was also upheld by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating entity was named and shamed pursuant to Article 12 of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (49/2009) providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation and prosecution against Saudi Coca-Cola Bottling Co. for its potential violation of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 22/02/1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (131), dated 06/02/1435H, penalizing Saudi Coca-Cola Bottling Company for violation of the Competition Law by agreement on increasing and fixing the prices of soft drinks.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (65/2011), dated 24/04/1432H, providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation and prosecution against Abdel Rahman and Mohamed Al Shaalan Company for its potential violation of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 23/06/1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (128), dated 19/11/1434H, penalizing Abdel Rahman and Mohamed Al Shaalan Company for violation of the Competition Law by agreeing with a number of companies to impose special terms on selling operations with central markets.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (29/2008) dated 26/2/1429H, providing for initiation of procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by companies producing advanced medical gases of any of the provisions of the Competition Law in connection with a tender for supplying Ministry of Health needs.


On 19/11/1431H, the case was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations against a number of defendants.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (108), dated 06/04/1433H, penalizing Abdullah Mohammed Ba Jubair & Sons Company for committing the violation of agreement with a number of producers on complicity in connection with a Ministry of Health tender.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (49/2009), providing for initiation of procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by the Saudi Industrial Beverages Company (Bugshan) of the articles of the Competition Law.
On 22/2/1433H, the case was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations against defendant.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued resolution no. (113) penalizing Saudi Industrial Beverages Company (Bugshan) for violation of the Competition Law through fixing and setting the prices of soft drinks, compelling customers not to deal with another competitor, and imposing special terms regarding selling operations.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (49/2009) providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation and prosecution against Saudi Coca-Cola Bottling Co. for its potential violation of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.
On 22/02/1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (109, penalizing Saudi Coca-Cola Bottling Company for violation of the Competition Law through compelling customers not to deal with another competitor.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (52/2010), providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation and prosecution against the United Company for Sugar for its potential violation of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.
On 21/05/1432H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (103), penalizing the United Company for Sugar for violation of the Competition Law by imposing special terms on selling and purchasing operations.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (65/2011), providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation and prosecution against Saleh Abdulaziz Babaker Sons Co. for Trading
for its potential violation of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.
On 24/06/1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (124), dated 19/11/1434H, penalizing Saleh Abdulaziz Babaker Sons Co. for Trading for violation of the Competition Law through sharing markets and controlling the prices of goods.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (49/2009), providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation and prosecution against Al Jomaih Bottling Company for its potential violation of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 22/02/1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (111), penalizing Al Jomaih Holding Co. for violation of the Competition Law by fixing and setting the prices of soft drinks, compelling customers not to deal with another competitor, and imposing special terms regarding selling operations
The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (29/2008) dated 26/2/1429H, providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by companies producing advanced medical gases of any of the provisions of the Competition Law in connection with a tender for supplying the needs of the Ministry of Health.
On 19/11/1431H, the case was referred against the defendant to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (106), dated 06/04/1433H, penalizing Abdullah Mohammed Ba Jubair & Sons Company for violation of the Competition Law through the agreement between producers on sharing markets and regions in connection with a Ministry of Health tender.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (29/2008) dated 26/2/1429H, providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by companies producing advanced medical gases of any of the provisions of the Competition Law in connection with a tender for supplying the needs of the Ministry of Health.

On 19/11/1431H, the case was referred against the defendant to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (107), dated 06/04/1433H, penalizing Abdullah Mohammed Ba Jubair & Sons Company for violation of the Competition Law through the agreement between producers on setting and fixing the prices of medical gases.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (52/2010), dated (19/1/1431H), providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation and prosecution against the United Company for Sugar for its potential violation of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 21/05/1432H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (104), dated (8/3/1433H), penalizing the United Company for Sugar for violation of the Competition Law by obligating agents and distributors not to sell products outside the Kingdom.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (49/2009), dated (27/12/1430H), providing for initiation of procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by the Saudi Industrial Beverages Company (Bugshan) of the articles of the Competition Law.

On 22/2/1433H, the case was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations against defendant.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued resolution no. (131), dated (06/02/1435H), penalizing Saudi Industrial Beverages Company (Bugshan) for violation of the Competition Law through agreeing on increasing and fixing the prices of soft drinks.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (49/2009), dated (27/12/1430H), providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation and prosecution against Al Jomaih Bottling Company for its potential violation of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 22/02/1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.
The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (131), penalizing Al Jomaih Holding Co. for violation of the Competition Law by agreeing on increasing and fixing the prices of soft drinks.
The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (50/2010) dated 19/01/1431H, to continue procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by companies producing advanced medical gases of any of the provisions of the Competition Law in connection with a tender for supplying the needs of the Ministry of Health.

On 19/11/1431H, the case was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations against a number of defendants.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (106), dated 06/04/1433H, penalizing the defendants, including Riyadh Oxygen Plant for committing the violation of sharing markets and regions, which is punishable under Article 4 of the Competition Law

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (49/2009), dated 27/12/1430H, providing for taking procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation and prosecution of a potential violation by a number of producers and bottlers of soft drinks of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 20/02/1433H, the Council issued its decision no. (76/2012) to initiate the procedures for criminal action before the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations against the violating entities.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (112), dated 15/07/1433H, penalizing Abdel Hadi A. ALQahtani & Sons Company for committing several violations of the Competition Law.
In application of the Competition Law, the firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (79/2012), dated 19/3/1433H, providing for initiating the procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, and investigation of the potential violation of the ready-mix concrete and bricks factories in Hail Region and related parties of any of the provisions of the Competition Law .

On 21/7/1433H, the case was referred against a number of defendants to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (118) on 17/03/1434H penalizing Hail Ready-mix Concrete Factory for committing the violation of agreement between the concrete factories in Hail region on fixing the prices of concrete and blocks.
The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (79/2012), dated 19/3/1433H, providing for initiating the procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, and investigation of the potential violation of the ready-mix concrete and bricks factories in Hail Region and related parties of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 21/7/1433H, the case was referred against a number of defendants to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.


The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (118) on 17/03/1434H penalizing Airaf Premixed Concrete & Blocks Factory for committing the violation of agreement between the concrete factories in Hail region on fixing the prices of concrete and blocks.
The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee. Besides, the judgment became final and enforceable due to the expiry of the period for appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (79/2012), dated 19/3/1433H, providing for initiating the procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, and investigation of the potential violation of the ready-mix concrete and bricks factories in Hail Region and related parties of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 21/7/1433H, the case was referred against a number of defendants to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.


The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (118) on 17/03/1434H penalizing Al Alyan for Ready-mix Concrete Factory for committing the violation of agreement between the concrete factories in Hail region on fixing the prices of concrete and blocks.
The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (29/2008), dated 26/02/1429H, providing for continuing the procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence and investigation, of a potential violation of any of the provisions of the Competition Law by companies producing advanced medical gases applying for a tender to supply the needs of the Ministry of Health.

On 19/11/1431H, the case was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations against a number of defendants.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (106), dated 06/04/1433H, penalizing the defendants, including Abdullah Hashim Industrial Gases & Equipment Co. Ltd. for agreement among producers on setting and fixing the selling prices of medical gases, which is punishable under Article 4 of the Competition Law

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (62/2011), dated 24/04/1432H, providing for taking procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence and investigation against the potential violation by the Saudi Telecom Company (STC) and related parties of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 20/02/1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.
The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (123), dated 16/04/1434H, penalizing the Saudi Telecom Company (STC) for misusing its dominant position by withholding services from clients of competing companies (e.g. non-activation of number portability service, and refusal to transit international calls).

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (65/2011), dated 24/04/1432, providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation and prosecution of a potential violation by some traders, importers and parties engaged in the rice business of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 23/6/1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its Decision No. (121) dated 09/04/1434H, penalizing Mayar Foods Company, formerly (Al-Muhaidib Foods) for violating the Competition Law through fixing and setting the prices of selling rice and imposing minimum resale prices.
The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its Resolution No. (65/2011), dated 24/4/1432H, providing for initiating the procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by some traders, importers and parties engaged in the rice business of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 24/06/1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its decision no. (122) dated 16/04/1434H, penalizing Saeed bin Ahmed Al-Mahrous & Sons Co. for violating the Competition Law through fixing and setting the prices of selling rice to sale points.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (49/2009), providing for initiation of procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by the Saudi Industrial Beverages Company (Bugshan) of the articles of the Competition Law.

On 22/2/1433H, the case was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations against defendant.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued resolution no. (113), dated 15/7/1433H, penalizing Saudi Industrial Beverages Company (Bugshan) for violation of the Competition Law through agreement on sharing of markets and regions.
The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (65/2011), dated 24/04/1432H, providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation and prosecution against Abdul-Rahman and Muhammad Al-Abdul-Aziz Al-Shalan Company for its potential violation of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.


On 23/06/1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.


The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (119), dated 02/04/1434H, penalizing Abdul-Rahman and Muhammad Al-Abdul-Aziz Al-Shalan Company for violation of the Competition Law through fixing and setting the prices of selling rice to sale points.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
On 19/11/1431H, the case was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations against a number of defendants.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its decision No. (108) dated 06/04/1433H, penalizing the defendants, including Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz Al Dakheel Company for Industrial and Medical Gases for violating the Competition Law through agreement with a number of producers on complicity in connection with a Ministry of Health tender, which is punishable under Article 4 of the Competition Law.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its decision no. (65/2011), dated 24/04/1432H, providing for continuing the procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by some traders’ importers and parties engaged in the rice business of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 23/6/1433H, the case against a number of defendants was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its Decision No. (120) dated 09/04/1434H, penalizing the defendant Omar Bin Ali Balsharaf Establishment for violating the Competition Law through fixing and setting the prices of selling rice to sale points.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (50/2010) dated 19/01/1431H, providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation and prosecution of a potential violation by companies producing advanced medical gases of any of the provisions of the Competition Law in connection with a tender for supplying the needs of the Ministry of Health.

On 19/11/1431H, the case was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations against a number of defendants.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (106), dated 06/04/1434H, penalizing the Industrial Gases Company (SIGAS) for committing the violation of agreement with producers on sharing markets and regions in connection with the Ministry of Health tender.
The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (65/2011), dated 24/04/1432H, providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by Al Nafeh Trading Holding Company of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 13/7/1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its decision no. (126) dated 30/4/1434H, penalizing Al-Nafea Trading Holding Company for violating the Competition Law through setting the conditions of sale by requiring non-sale of rice to wholesalers or central markets.
The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (29/2008) dated 26/2/1429H, providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by companies producing advanced medical gases of any of the provisions of the Competition Law in connection with a tender for supplying the needs of the Ministry of Health.

On 19/11/1431H, the case was referred against the defendant to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (101), dated 14/02/1432H, penalizing the Gofco for Industrial Gases Factory for violation of the Competition Law by agreeing with producers on setting and fixing the selling prices for medical gases.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (65/2011), dated 24/04/1432H, providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation and prosecution of a potential violation by some traders importers and parties engaged in the rice business of any of the provisions of the Competition Law.

On 13/07/1433H, the case against the defendant was referred to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.
The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (125), dated 23/04/1434H, penalizing Omar Kassem Alesayi & Co. for Marketing Ltd. for violation of the Competition Law through fixing and setting the selling prices of rice to sale points.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (29/2008) dated 26/2/1429H, providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by companies producing advanced medical gases of any of the provisions of the Competition Law in connection with a tender for supplying the needs of the Ministry of Health.

On 19/11/1431H, the case was referred against the defendant to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (107), dated 06/04/1433H, penalizing Airleked Khafrah Company for violation of the Competition Law through setting and fixing the selling prices for medical gases.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (29/2008) dated 26/2/1429H, providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by companies producing advanced medical gases of any of the provisions of the Competition Law in connection with a tender for supplying the needs of the Ministry of Health.
On 19/11/1431H, the case was referred against the defendant to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (106), dated 06/04/1433H, penalizing Airleked Khafrah Company for violation of the Competition Law through agreement between producers on complicity in connection with the Ministry of Health tender.
The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.
The Council issued its resolution no. (29/2008) dated 26/2/1429H, providing for initiating procedures for inquiry, gathering of evidence, investigation, and prosecution of a potential violation by companies producing advanced medical gases of any of the provisions of the Competition Law in connection with a tender for supplying the needs of the Ministry of Health.
On 19/11/1431H, the case was referred against the defendant to the Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations.

The Committee for Review and Adjudication of Competition Law Violations issued its resolution no. (106), dated 06/04/1433H, penalizing Airleked Khafrah Company for violation of the Competition Law through agreement between producers on sharing markets and regions in connection with a Ministry of Health tender.

The firm filed an appeal with the Board of Grievances within the statutory period, and the Administrative Court decided to reject the appeal and confirmed the original resolution of the Committee supported by the Administrative Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the violating firm was named and shamed pursuant to Article (12) of the Competition Law.