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 performance 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. Making such a determination is within the exclusive competence of the AMCU.
• Establishment of a monopoly (dominance) of a business entity (entities) by the AMCU includes application both of structural and behavioural factors characterising the state of competition in the market.  In this case application of structural factors is reasoned by establishment of an analysis object, determination of commodity, territorial (geographic), and time limits of the market on the basis of information that may be used for determination of a monopoly (dominance).
• Establishment by several business entities not enjoying a monopoly (dominance) in this market, the highest retail prices may not restrict competitiveness of other business entities in the market of certain categories of goods considerably, because the latter entities could not incur loss due to establishment of the highest prices.  When settling the dispute the court shall not investigate price formation in the commodity markets.
• The laws do not contain the provisions on the minimum number of facts (events) that would be considered to be sufficient for qualification of acts of business entities as abuse of a monopoly (dominance).  Therefore, a certain single breach that is duly established and proven may be the basis for such qualification.
• Ukrainian Law does not contain an exhaustive list of possible commodity markets, therefore the parties to a dispute cannot refer to the fact that a commodity market researched by the AMCU is not stipulated by the law.
• Absence of monopoly (dominance) position of a certain business entity does not exclude the possibility of a negative effect of the business entity on the commodity market as a result of anticompetitive acts agreed upon with other business entities.
• The laws of Ukraine do not provide for a special form and procedure of sending of an answer to the request of the AMCU for submitting information.  Therefore, such information may be provided in any form and using any method not prohibited by the laws, simultaneously taking into account the fact that rejection by the AMCU of submitted information requires provision by the latter of proper evidence to confirm its arguments concerning proper fulfilment of the obligation for provision of the required information.  The facts of repeated non-submission by one and the same business entity of information on request of the AMCU do not constitute continuing breach, but are independent (separate) breaches of the laws on protection of economic competition.