The Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) holds a unique position among state regulatory authorities, as it is responsible for maintaining fair competition, combating monopolies, and creating equal conditions for all market participants. Recent changes in national legislation and new inspection practices reflect the committee’s increased activity amid economic reforms and alignment with EU standards. Understanding the essence and mechanisms of the committee’s inspections is strategically important for entrepreneurs, legal departments, and corporate managers.

Legal foundation of the Antimonopoly Committee’s activities and inspections

The AMCU’s activities are based on several laws, including the Law “On Protection of Economic Competition” and the Law “On the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine,” as well as subordinate regulations governing the procedure for control, conducting inspections, and applying sanctions. Under the law, the committee is empowered to oversee compliance with antitrust legislation, prevent unfair competition, monitor business concentrations, and address abuse of dominant market position.

In 2023–2024, significant updates to inspection procedures were introduced and detailed in the new Regulation on inspecting business entities, state authorities, local governments, and their associations. This document specifies the stages, timelines, grounds, rights, and obligations of parties involved in the inspection process.

Who is subject to inspection and why

AMCU inspections cover not only large companies suspected of market dominance or anti-competitive behavior but also governmental bodies, local authorities, and administrative management entities. The main grounds for inspection include:

• Complaints from businesses, citizens, or associations about antitrust violations;
• Detection of violations directly by the AMCU;
• Discovery of inaccurate information in documents submitted to the AMCU;
• Submissions from government agencies;
• Court decisions requiring an inspection.

Such grounds provide the AMCU with broad powers, ensuring effective state oversight but also creating potential risks for businesses due to the unpredictability and scale of inspections.

Types of inspections and procedures

Current regulations clearly distinguish between scheduled and unscheduled inspections. The majority are unscheduled—potentially triggered by external complaints or internal AMCU initiatives. The procedure is detailed and includes:

• Issuing an order to conduct the inspection;
• Forming a committee to carry out the inspection;
• Notifying the business entity about the inspection’s start;
• Adhering to deadlines as set by the order and regulations;
• Recording the process and results in special acts and reports.

Recently, the law has required a commercial court decision to initiate an AMCU inspection, thereby formalizing the process and strengthening business rights protection.

The Committee’s powers during inspections

During inspections, the AMCU wields significant information-gathering powers, including:

• Unrestricted access to company premises and assets regardless of location;
• Obtaining copies of any documents and information (including trade secrets);
• Seizure of documents, data carriers, and attachment of physical evidence;
• Inspection of premises, information systems, and servers;
• Requiring oral and written explanations from responsible company personnel.

The inspected entity must assist the committee, not impede its actions, and ensure full and timely access to necessary resources. At the same time, businesses have the right to document the inspection, challenge specific actions or decisions, and engage legal counsel.

Results, sanctions, and consequences of inspections

Depending on identified violations, AMCU may apply the following measures:

• Issue an order to correct violations;
• Impose administrative and economic penalties (fines);
• Demand the division of a company or termination of anti-competitive agreements;
• Refer materials to law enforcement if there are signs of criminal offenses.

Fines can reach up to 10% of the company’s revenue for the previous reporting year. In some cases, this involves hundreds of millions or even billions of hryvnias. Notable recent cases include fines against “DniproAzot,” the “Roshen” group, “Tedіs Ukraine,” “Avias,” and “DTEK.”

Committee decisions may be appealed in court, but in practice, this route is difficult and expensive, with uncertain outcomes. Inspections can also trigger public controversy and damage reputations.

Notable Cases: Practical Aspects

• PJSC “Dniproazot” (2018–2019):The company suspended liquid chlorine production, resulting in an epidemiological threat to cities. The AMCU found abuse of market dominance and fined the company over UAH80 million.
• Roshen Group (2018–2020):The company controlled more than 90% of the glucose syrup market, allowing it to influence pricing in its favor. This resulted in substantial fines and lengthy litigation.
• “Avias” and “DTEK”:Both cases involved collusion in the petrol and electricity markets, with fines of UAH4.7b and UAH0.77b, respectively. Some decisions are still under judicial review, illustrating legal disputes over economic evidence.

These examples demonstrate the AMCU’s growing role in the country’s economic security and the challenges businesses face when defending themselves against sanctions.

New trends: prevention, recommendations, and transparency

Preventive measures are increasingly important: companies are more frequently consulting the AMCU for advisory opinions to ensure their commercial policies comply with antitrust law. This allows them to avoid inspections and penalties by timely legal adjustments to their business models.

The AMCU actively informs businesses and the public about competition policy principles, introduces transparent interaction procedures with market players, and maintains open registers of decisions and information about detected collusions and anti-competitive actions.

Risks for business and recommendations

Today, any company may become subject to inspection. The key risks are:

• Heavy financial penalties, including multimillion fines;
• Reputational losses and increased scrutiny from partners and contractors;
• Disruptions due to asset seizures, document and data confiscation, resource blockages;
• Risks of simultaneous interference from other regulatory bodies, including financial monitoring and law enforcement.

Recommendations to minimize risks include:

• Advance preparation and auditing of compliance with competition law;
• Formalizing and regularly updating internal policies on marketing, competitor communications, and tender participation;
• Training staff in antitrust compliance;
• Ensuring legal support and a rapid-response lawyer in case of inspections;
• Regularly consulting the AMCU for clarification on planned business actions.

Conclusions

AMCU inspections have become a crucial part of business processes in Ukraine, requiring modern risk management and compliance approaches. Legislative innovations and increased procedural transparency by the antimonopoly authority create both conditions for fair competition and new challenges for enterprises. The main trend—prevention, self-control, and stable relations with the regulator—can protect companies from financial and reputational losses.

Effective preparation for inspections today is not only about satisfying formal requirements but also about building a long-term business development strategy in a competitive environment.

Author — Maksym Bahniuk, Head of Tax and Customs Law Practice at the Law Firm Association «WINNER Legal Company».