Refusal to supply goods and access to essential facilities may be regarded as abusive conduct under Lithuanian competition rules.
In 2002, the CC started an investigation at the request of undertakings supplying vessels with food stocks, ship equipment and spare parts. The CC analysed the permit issuing practice of Klaipedos juru kroviniu kompanija, owner of the pier, to undertakings to access the vessels, within the provisions of the LC. The CC stated that Klaipedos juru kroviniu kompanija was in a dominant position in the market for issuing permits to render the services concerned to final consumers. Dominating the market, the company established different competition conditions for undertakings servicing ships. The company was issuing to ship servicing undertakings single charged permits to access, on foot or by car, the vessels at the pier, subject to the condition that the undertakings provided, in advance, the order of the owner, the captain of the vessel or their authorised representative. The subsidiary of Klaipedos juru kroviniu kompanija was exempted from this requirement. The CC concluded, therefore, that the actions of Klaipedos juru kroviniu kompanija were abusive and the company was obliged to issue permits to undertakings supplying and servicing vessels for access to the vessels across the land rented by Klaipedos juru kroviniu kompanija at the same (non-discriminatory) terms.
In 2008, the CC imposed a fine of 171,000 litas on the State Enterprise Vilnius International Airport for preventing a potential competitor, Naftelf, from entering the downstream markets for the supply of aviation gasoline and jet fuels to aeroplanes in the Vilnius international airport. The CC considered that the undertaking with the market share of 100 per cent was holding a dominant position in the upstream market for the management and organisation of services in the international airport of Vilnius. The CC declared that Vilnius International Airport is the owner of necessary infrastructure and found its refusal to grant access to essential facilities, which was objectively unjustified, to be an abuse of dominance.