EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS

EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS 2022

Prague, Czechia

(contrary to public insurance policies) and often for a 2-year period. The same applies to all clients, which means that a 2-child family will often have to make a lump-sum payment of around 8,000 Euros. Furthermore, regarding the guarantee of accessibility to medical services, we must analyse the price of these services. Earlier criticisms were made regarding: 1) the formal use of health insurance by foreigners only to obtain or extend a visa; 2) the low price of such insurance of several commercial policies, which could not theoretically guarantee full payment for all medical services, especially in complex cases. PVZP solved this problem by significantly increasing the insurance policy price: what was already the most expensive insurance base price available rose by about 22%, with a later cancellation of existing bonuses and discounts, and a further price increase announced for 2022. In our view, in this case, the Czech authorities could have taken measures to minimize the effects of monopolization, such as regulation of legal monopolies (average cost pricing, price ceiling), if it wanted to help migrants. Thus, by granting powers to a sole company in the form of PVZP to provide ‘affordable’ or ‘better’ medical care for migrants as was previously stated by the government, in fact, insurance options have deteriorated significantly in all aspects for most migrants. Based on the above, the general good was not protected under the monopoly of PVZP. In the next analysis, it is necessary to address the ability to apply Art.106(1) TFEU because PVZP was granted the exclusive right in the health insurance sector for migrants. Art.106(1) is addressed at the Member States and can only be applied in conjunction with another article of the Treaty (Art. 101 or Art. 102) (Makkink, 2017, p. 52; OECD, 2009, p. 7). In the aforementioned practices of PVZP, we can see signs of abuse of a dominant position (Art. 102 TFEU) within the internal market which consists of directly imposing unfair purchase prices and trading conditions. This would be impossible in a competitive environment. However, under the second main argument for mentioned law alterations, for the transition period, the Czech authorities needed a company, which had already met the established requirements of the sole shareholder and for the number of contracts concluded. They consequently decided that PVZP was the only suitable and legitimate contender. It is true that PVZP was the only contender. But only because, in fact, no other commercial insurance company could meet new requirements that its sole shareholder must be a health insurance company. Was it done in advance without a preliminary waiting period so that no other company could fulfill the new conditions, but only PVZP could? Regarding the sole shareholder of the insurance company, the OECD warned on this subject in 1998: ‘The Office does not agree with an attachment to the exclusive supply of contractual health insurance only with health insurance

212