In its consultation, Aproval requested the TDLC to review, first, whether or not the Agreement was contrary to free competition. According to the complainant, the “Bono de Asociaciones Gremiales” (“Bono”) agreed in the Agreement would have anticompetitive effects by benefiting only organizations affiliated to Fedeleche. Secondly, Aproval asked the TDLC to rule on certain acts of execution of the Agreement by Watt’s, consisting in having informed the producers associated to Aproval that, since March 2024, all payments associated to the Bonus for the producers of the Los Ríos Region would be collected and paid to Saval F.G. In the opinion of Aproval, this decision of Watt’s, made within the framework of the Agreement, would exclude as beneficiaries of the referred bonus both the consultant and other associations not affiliated to Fedeleche.
In its resolution, the TDLC categorically rejected Aproval’s request, arguing that it is not appropriate to initiate a non-contentious proceeding whose purpose is to evaluate whether the Agreement is contrary to free competition, since the same court already ruled that it was not when approving it. Therefore, the dismissal of such magistracy has already taken place, and, in addition, the referred Agreement enjoys the authority of res judicata. In this sense, the purpose of the institution of res judicata would be “to confer certainty to the rights that have been adjudicated by the jurisdictional body, and to prevent the adoption of a decision on a matter that has already been resolved”.
In view of the foregoing, the TDLC concluded that, unless a change of circumstances is alleged that merits, on the basis of new information, to invalidate any of the measures that were the object of the Agreement, it is not possible to submit it again for review. Furthermore, if what is being alleged is a breach of the Agreement or an anti-competitive infringement, the way to do so would not be in a non-contentious proceeding.
This decision, on the one hand, highlights the importance of the legal certainty derived from the decisions of the courts in competition matters. But it also seems to suggest that TDLC rulings approving settlement agreements between the parties to a contentious case would have effects with respect to third parties outside the lawsuit, who would not be able to question the possible impact of such agreements on them. It remains to be seen, however, if Aproval files a judicial appeal against the TDLC’s decision, in order to confirm its conclusions on this matter.
TDLC: Rejection of Aproval’s consultation on agreement between Watt’s and Fedeleche
The recent pronouncement of the Court for the Defense of Free Competition ("TDLC"), which rejected the initiation of the consultation procedure attempted by the Asociación Gremial de Productores de Leche de la Región de los Ríos A.G. ("Aproval") against the conciliatory agreement entered into between Watt's and Fedeleche in 2021 ("Agreement"), offers a valuable lesson on the value of res judicata in free competition proceedings.
