Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe and North America: 718 cases from 32 jurisdictions, each with an official source and checked against that source before publication. Filter by country, area of law and sector. Click a chart to drill down one level.
Click a bar to drill down one level.
Where?
by regionAll jurisdictions
What for?
by topicWho?
by company- TotalEnergies Marketing France, Rubis Énergie, Rubis Terminal, EG Retail €187.5m 96 % · 1 case
- XCL Resources Holdings LLC, Verdun Oil Company II LLC, EP Energy LLC €5.39m 3 % · 1 case
- RASEMA s.r.o.; M – D – J, spol. s.r.o.; SIMA plus Krompachy, s.r.o.; BarCom spol. s.r.o. €1.1m 1 % · 1 case
- UAB „Emsi“ €1.02m 1 % · 1 case
- Brantner Fatra, s.r.o. €180,200 0 % · 1 case
- SIA "Mārupes komunālie pakalpojumi" €78,056 0 % · 1 case
- Slovenská asociácia palivového priemyslu a obchodu €10,000 0 % · 1 case
- Eesti Keskkonnateenused AS — 0 % · 1 case
- Kalibrate Canada (Tochter der Kalibrate Technologies Ltd.) — 0 % · 1 case
- SUROVINA d.o.o.; SALOMON d.o.o.; RECIKEL d.o.o.; DINOS d.o.o. — 0 % · 1 case
When?
per quarter, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Q3 2023 | 0 | — |
| Q4 2023 | 0 | — |
| Q1 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q2 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q3 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q4 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q1 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q2 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q3 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q4 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q1 2026 | 1 | €1.1m |
| Q2 2026 | 0 | — |
| Q3 2026 | 0 | — |
1 case
29 Jan 2026 RASEMA s.r.o.; M – D – J, spol. s.r.o.; SIMA plus Krompachy, s.r.o.; BarCom spol. s.r.o.Photovoltaic tender: 1.1 million EUR – the contracting entity was also a cartel member €1.1m
In a tender for industrial photovoltaic installations that was to be financed from EU Structural Funds, three bidders coordinated their bids so that a pre-selected bidder would win; the contracting entity BarCom acted as facilitator. The Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky (Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic, PMÚ SR) imposed a total of 1,098,200 EUR and three-year procurement bans on all four; the EU funding was refused because of the indications of competition infringements, and the collusion was proven by e-mails secured during the inspection.
A contracting entity that determines the winner of a funded tender in advance is itself liable under competition law and additionally risks losing the funding.
Collusion in funded procurement
- Authority / court
- Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky (PMÚ SR)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Slowakisches Wettbewerbsschutzgesetz (Submissionsabsprache)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Energy and utilities
- Culpability
- intentional
- Published
- 11 Feb 2026
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link