On 6 April 2026, Cyprus’s Supreme Constitutional Court, in the context of an appeal of the Decision of the Administrative Court, confirmed a €2.1 million fine against the Pancyprian Organisation of Cattle Breeders (POA) that was imposed for several violations of national competition law.
What is this case about?
POA is an organisation that represents cattle farmers across Cyprus. It was found to have abused its position to control how milk was sold and priced, thereby harming fair competition in the market. The Cyprus Commission for the Protection of Competition (CPC) had investigated POA and imposed fines back in 2014.
What did POA actually do wrong?
By way of its decision No. 42/2014, dated 17 October 2014[1], the CPC had established the following violations of Articles 3(1)(a), 3(1)(b) and 6(1)(a) of the Law 13(I)/2008 (equivalent to Articles 101(1)(a), 101(1)(b) and Article 102(a) of the TFEU respectively):
- Violation of Article 3(1)(a) of the Law, regarding practices related to the concluding of exclusive distribution contracts for fresh cow’s milk with cattle-breeders that were members of POA, which included certain standard terms that fixed the purchase price of fresh cow milk. A fine of €600,000 was imposed.
- Violation of Article 3(1)(b) of the Law, regarding the same contracts and the imposition of exclusivity and non-compete clauses for which a fine of €600,000 was imposed.
- Violation of Article 3(1)(b) of the Law, in relation to the ‘Smooth Production of Milk’ (SPM) measure, which essentially tried to control production and for which a fine of €100,000 was imposed.
- Violation of Article 6(1)(a) of the Law, regarding the fixing and/or imposition of excessive and unfair prices by a dominant undertaking. A fine of €800,000 was imposed.
On 24 September 2021, the Administrative Court issued a lengthy 88-page judgment, dismissing POA’s challenge to the lawfulness of the CPC decision.[2]
How did POA try to fight the fines?
POA raised nine separate grounds of appeal before the Supreme Constitutional Court[3], which were grouped and analysed in three categories:
- Procedural challenges: Was the process fair?
The Supreme Constitutional Court prioritised these grounds and examined them first since their success would have invalidated the entire proceedings. These procedural grounds of appeal comprised of the argument that the CPC President was biased, that the CPC President had improperly handled her recusal request, that the authority could not fairly act as both an investigator and a judge, and that POA was not given proper access to the case file resulting in the principle of a fair trial not being upheld.
POA relied on newspaper articles and a TV broadcast in which statements attributed to the CPC President allegedly blamed POA before the investigation was concluded. The Supreme Constitutional Court concluded that the alleged statements were neither verified as accurately reported nor proven to be the CPC President’s own words. It additionally found that POA had not discharged its burden of demonstrating bias with sufficient certainty.
The grounds concerning the recusal procedure were also rejected because POA itself had requested an individual presidential decision on recusal and could not then complain that the body had not decided this matter collectively.
As for the challenge to the CPC’s combined role as investigator, prosecutor and judge, this was dismissed by reference to the Filippidou v. Capital Markets Commission (2023) line of authority, which confirmed that Article 6 ECHR is satisfied where, as in this case, a later full judicial review by a competent court is available.
Lastly, on the access to file issue, it was concluded that POA had already had that question decided in an earlier court ruling and could not raise it again now.
- Substantive challenges: Were the findings correct?
POA essentially tried to argue that its behaviour was mandated, or at least permitted by the national regulatory framework governing recognised agricultural producer organisations. The Supreme Constitutional Court disagreed, finding that POA had pushed its powers to an extreme by forcing members to channel all of their milk exclusively through POA, which went beyond what the framework permitted or encouraged.
POA also attempted to argue that special EU agricultural regulations shielded the agricultural sector from the application of competition law. The Supreme Constitutional Court firmly rejected this, by reference to the well-known decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the French endives case[4], which established that producers’ organisations are not automatically exempt from competition law scrutiny.
National competition authorities retain jurisdiction to apply competition rules to agricultural producer organisations and the exemptions from Article 101 TFEU (equivalent to Article 3 of the Law) must be interpreted narrowly. In other words, collective price-fixing and market-sharing agreements are not protected just because an organisation operates in the agricultural sector.
- The level of the fine: Was €2.1 million too much?
POA challenged the finding that the violations were continuous, which was treated as an aggravating factor in determining the level of the fine that was imposed. The Supreme Constitutional Court disagreed. At no stage did POA make any changes to either its contract terms and exclusivity clauses, nor to the SPM measure or its pricing methodology. It is also pointed out in the judgment that at no point did POA make a statement or show any indication that the said violations had ceased or that remedial measures had been adopted. The finding of continuity was thus found to have been properly justified as an aggravating factor.
Key takeaway
The Cyprus Supreme Constitutional Court upheld every aspect of the original decision. The €2.1 million fine stands and the case is a clear reminder that organisations in the agricultural sector – like any other – must operate within the realm of competition law.
CHRYSSES DEMETRIADES & CO LLC
Ioanna Kyriakidou and Polyvios Panayides
[1]https://www.competition.gov.cy/competition/competition.nsf/All/2E5DCC6D07264C2AC2257EA100400BA1?OpenDocument
[2]https://www.competition.gov.cy/competition/competition.nsf/All/2DE19137F24BDFA8C22587600040C99A?OpenDocument
[3]https://www.competition.gov.cy/competition/competition.nsf/All/388AA9B6AE05A819C2258DD4002440FB?OpenDocument
[4] C-671/15, Président de l’Autorité de la concurrence v. Association des producteurs vendeurs d’endives (APVE) etc.