President of the Slovenian AVK Rejects Government’s Accusations Regarding the Agrokor Case

The president of the Slovenian Competition Protection Agency (AVK), Andrej Matvoz, has deemed the accusations from the Slovenian government unfounded, which on Thursday requested his dismissal because, among other things, he did not react to the change in ownership relations in Mercator after the lex Agrokor was adopted in Croatia.

“I warn that the government’s actions should be taken very seriously and that they represent unacceptable pressures that threaten the independence and autonomy of the agency,” Matvoz said in an interview with the Maribor newspaper “Večer”.

He also announced that he would inform the European Commission and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) about everything after he receives an official notification regarding the government’s conclusion.

>>> Slovenians Dismiss Director of the Competition Agency Due to Incompetence in the Agrokor Case

Matvoz believes that the government’s complaints about his incompetence and inactivity are unjustified and unfounded, and he questions the move by Prime Minister Miro Cerar’s government, which is nearing the end of its mandate and is only performing routine tasks.

The proposal for Matvoz’s dismissal was made by Minister of Economy Zdravko Počivalšek, who cited his alleged inactivity after the lex Agrokor was adopted in Croatia as an immediate reason. Počivalšek believes this should have been analyzed in light of the change in ownership concentration and the greater influence on the operations of the Slovenian Mercator that the Croatian government gained.

Počivalšek told the Ljubljana newspaper “Dnevnik” that Agrokor could lose its voting rights at the next Mercator shareholders’ meeting and that it could happen that all conclusions of the meeting, after the lex Agrokor came into effect, are declared invalid.

>>> Court Dismisses Appeal, Agrokor’s Assets in Slovenia No Longer Protected from Enforcement

“Dnevnik” also reports that Agrokor, from whom they requested a comment, stated that they are convinced that such a possibility does not exist.

As they stated in a statement for the Slovenian newspaper, the appointment of a temporary administrator is a special insolvency procedure that does not affect the ownership structure, and the management of the Agrokor group has been transferred to a temporary commissioner appointed by the court.

“The control of the commissioner’s work is carried out by creditors through the creditors’ council and the commercial court, and the Republic of Croatia, besides proposing a temporary commissioner, has no jurisdiction in this procedure,” Agrokor stated.

>>> London Court Decides There Are No Obstacles to Todorić’s Extradition

Prominent Slovenian lawyer Miha Juhat, who is often consulted by the government for expert opinions, stated for “Dnevnik” that two important questions arise in the case – can the state be treated as an economic entity during ownership concentration, and is a measure, such as lex Agrokor, of a temporary nature and adopted for the purpose of restructuring, or is it a permanent measure, which is crucial for declaring ownership concentration.

In this case, different interpretations are possible, and I could not predict how the leadership of the competition regulatory agency would decide if the lex Agrokor case and its impact on Mercator were taken into consideration, he said.

Regarding whether Mercator can be treated as Croatian “state” property due to lex Agrokor, it was also discussed during a recent debate on the adoption of a special law that would allow Slovenia to “reciprocally” enforce claims against the assets of “Croatian companies” if Croatian courts continue to make decisions detrimental to Ljubljanska banka in the dispute over the so-called transferred savings of Croatian citizens in the former Ljubljanska banka Zagreb.

>>> Managements, Governments, and Regulators Are to Blame for Losses of Slovenian Banks According to the Commission Report

There were significant doubts among political parties regarding this, and such a proposal by opposition leader Janez Janša was ultimately rejected.

Some members of coalition parties emphasized that they support the “goals” of such a proposed law to protect Ljubljanska banka, but countermeasures to the decisions of Croatian courts must be “more subtle” as they can achieve the same goal.