In Valencia, the High Court of Justice has noted a 16,801.7 euro fine against a Castellón-based company, a sanction originally issued in 2020 by the Competition Defense Agency. The ruling, as reported by the EFE agency, links the penalty to serious breaches in competition law tied to the ownership connections of Francis Puig, brother of the regional president, though the legal atmosphere around these facts remains contested.
The sanction rests on evidence that the named firm, together with three other participants in the same sector, submitted almost identical bids for a contract to supply audio-visual resources to a public media entity in the Community of Valencia. The Fourth Division of the Disputed Chamber emphasizes that this pattern reflects a cartel-like behavior, where firms in the same market align to diminish or eradicate competition, thereby pushing prices and terms to maximize profits at the expense of consumers.
Judges highlight that the four bidders presented four distinct offer formats with identical pricing across all four preference categories used to guide the decision. The court rejected every argument raised by the sanctioned company in its appeal against the administrative decision, but the penalty is not final and remains subject to appeal before the TSJCV or the Supreme Court.
Background
At the end of 2020, the Valencian Anti-Competition Commission sanctioned Port Communications with a 16,801 euro fine. Canal Maestrat and Kriol Produccions were jointly and severally fined 26,103 euros, and Visualiza received a 3,337 euro penalty. The Commission also decided to refer the case to the State Public Contracts Advisory Board under the provisions of Article 71 of the Public Sector Contracts Law. The aim is to urge the involved companies to refrain from similar conduct and to motivate the Ministry of Economy to closely monitor adherence to the decision.
The tender in question for the so‑called reporters was published in January 2019 and was organized into twelve lots, each covering different nearby regions to serve the entire Community. According to the Commission, the implicated firms were informed before the tender went public about the conditions under which bids would be evaluated.
According to the Commission, the questioned companies questioned the independence or true autonomy of the bids they submitted. All four submitted their bids on the same day, February 12, and at identical prices across all four evaluation concepts. The Valencian Defense Commission therefore concluded that the distribution of lots 1, 2 and 3 through coordinated submission of identical offers could legally be described as a cartel in this context.
In short, the case centers on a coordinated effort among several bidders to fix terms and prices in a public procurement process, raising concerns about market integrity and consumer impact across the Valencia region.