The judicial precedents provided by previous rulings relating to antitrust legislation of the Highest Commercial Court indicate that:

• Proof of damages arising from concerted practices is not required in order to confirm that such concerted practices took place and that a violation of competition law occurred. A claimant in a previous case argued that the AMCU had no right to classify an action as 'concerted' within the meaning of the law if no proof of damage can be adduced. It maintained that if a market participant's actions do not inflict damages, no violation can be said to have occurred. The court disagreed, stating that the Competition Law provides that it is sufficient to establish the commission of acts falling within the definition of 'anticompetitive concerted practices' and the possible occurrence of damages.
• A commercial court has no competence to determine the monopoly status of a market participant, either independently or on the basis of any expert opinions. To make such a determination is an exclusive competence of the AMCU. A finding of monopoly status can be reached only as the result of a specific enquiry, which must include an analysis of the use of structural and behavioral indicators that characterize the state of competition in a particular market. As the court highlighted, the relevant legislation emphasizes that the AMCU is best placed to perform such evaluations.
• A simultaneous price rise in order to equalize prices which is made without reasonable justification may be viewed as an anticompetitive concerted practice. In a previous case involving several transport providers, the claimants challenged the commission's assertion that their actions constituted anticompetitive concerted practices, pointing to the absence of an agreement. The court rejected this argument and stated that a simultaneous increase of tariffs by all carriers on a particular route - which equalized the price for passengers for no objective reason and above a limit set by the competent authority - was sufficient to demonstrate anticompetitive concerted practices by said market participants.