13 November 2026, 23:42

Court Overturns AMCU Fine Against Odessakomtrans

Ця стаття також доступна українською

PHOTO: Odessa City Council

PHOTO: Odessa City Council

The Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU)’s decision to impose a fine on the municipal enterprise “Odeskomtrans” was ruled invalid. It was determined that the agency failed to take into account the activities of other market participants in the Khadzhibey district and erroneously identified the utility company as the sole monopolist in household waste collection.

This is stated in the decision of the Commercial Court of Odesa Oblast.

The document has not yet taken legal effect and may be appealed.

During the proceedings, the court examined contracts, letters from private companies, and documents from the district administration. It was found that other firms do indeed provide waste collection services to homeowners’ associations and businesses in the Khadzhibey District. Since the Antimonopoly Committee failed to take these competitors into account during its market analysis and incorrectly determined the municipal enterprise’s market share, the court ruled that the findings of monopolistic practices were unfounded.

Read also:Odessa Hotel Penalized for Fictitious Four-Star Rating

The municipal enterprise “Odeskomtrans” was recognized as a monopolist in the household waste management market in the Khadzhibey district of Odesa on May 29, 2026. Experts from the Antimonopoly Committee concluded that the municipal enterprise had abused its position by charging an inflated rate—129 hryvnias per cubic meter instead of the 127.97 hryvnias approved by the city council. As a result, the company was fined 68,000 hryvnias and ordered to cease the violation.

The municipal enterprise “Odeskomtrans” disagreed with this decision and appealed the ruling in court. Company representatives explained that they do not hold a monopoly, as other private service providers operate in the area at the same time, including “Clear-City,” “Eco-Leader,” “Raf-Plus,” and “EcoGrad.” At the same time, they justified the difference in service costs for individual consumers by citing the charging of a subscription fee.

Юлія Калабайда

Share