Cablegate: Czech Republic: Ambassador's Introductory Call On
VZCZCXRO0627
PP RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDBU RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA
RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHPG #1375/01 3101305
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 061305Z NOV 06
FM AMEMBASSY PRAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8186
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PRAGUE 001375
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV PREL ENRG EPET ECON EZ
SUBJECT: CZECH REPUBLIC: AMBASSADOR'S INTRODUCTORY CALL ON
ANTI-MONOPOLY OFFICE CHAIRMAN PECINA
REF: PRAGUE 256
1. (SBU) Summary: During the Ambassador,s introductory call
on Antimonopoly Office Chairman Martin Pecina on October 25,
Pecina discussed antitrust issues, energy independence and
the government tender review process. Pecina remains worried
about EU dependence on Russian energy and monopolies within
the Czech economy in the energy industry. He also explained
that his office is frequently dragged into legal disputes
involving large government tenders and listed the Kapsch toll
road tender as an example. End summary.
2. (U) During his first visit to the Czech Republic,s
second largest city, Brno, on October 25, Ambassador Graber
had lunch with Martin Pecina, Chairman of the Office for the
Protection of Competition.
3. (SBU) By way of introduction, Pecina relayed that by law
his office must approve any government tender over 2 million
crowns ($91,000). He stated that in the area of large
government tenders he felt that the process worked well but
Pecina worried that government corruption and favoritism was
a larger problem with small and medium-sized tenders. He
explained that local and sometimes central government
officials try to circumvent the requirement for his office's
review by breaking one big tender into several smaller ones.
4. (SBU) Pecina complained that the legislative mandate for
his office remains deficient. For instance, his office has
no legal authority to void signed contracts. If his office
discovers errors or tenders that were less than transparent
in the bidding stage, he can merely fine the company and
government agency that signed the contract and issue a
statement stating that the law was broken. In the review
process, Pecina,s deputies have 30 days to review the larger
government contracts and issue a decision; if any side
disputes the results they can appeal directly to Pecina
wherein the 30-day review clock is restarted. He noted that
both EU regulations and Czech laws govern the decision-making
process.
5. (SBU) Pecina explained that his greatest concerns in the
anti-trust area relates to single-company monopolies in the
fields of natural gas, electricity, telecommunications and
water. As an example, he complained that the government sold
natural gas distribution rights to one German company, RWE
Transgas, and that this has raised large anti-trust concerns.
RWE Transgas controls 83 percent of the Czech market in
natural gas distribution and 100 percent of the market in
natural gas purchase and transit (reftel). Pecina stated
that his office had recently fined RWE Transgas 370 million
crowns ($17 million) for abuse of its dominant market
position but that the company merely views these fines as a
cost of doing business and is still making huge profits in
the Czech Republic.
6. (SBU) On the issue of overall Czech energy dependence on
Russia, Pecina spoke of his prior experience as Deputy
Minister for Industry and Trade. In this capacity he was the
government,s point person on energy issues. He joked about
having to travel every three months to Russia in this
capacity to &beg8 for stable energy supplies. Pecina
explained that without the growth of nuclear power, EU states
would be a slave to Russia,s energy reserves for the
long-term future. He asserted that by 2030, without
diversification, the EU would be dependant on Russia for 70
percent of its natural gas and oil. Currently, 40 percent of
Czech,s electricity generation capacity is from nuclear
power and 55 percent is from coal.
7. (SBU) As an example of how the overall anti-trust system
works, Pecina gave the recent high-profile example of the
tender to build an electronic toll system that was won by the
Austrian company Kapsch TrafficCom. The value of the
implementation and operation of the tender over the next 10
years is close to $1 billion. At the close of the bid phase,
the Ministry of Transport dismissed the Italian firm
Autostrade,s offer because it was incomplete, according to
Pecina. Autostrade disputed the Transport Ministry,s
decision and filed an appeal with Pecina,s office at the end
of last year. In January, the Office for the Protection of
Competition confirmed the results of the tender and ruled
that no laws had been broken. At that point, Autostrade
appealed to the European Commission and in March the Office
for the Protection of Competition reconfirmed its earlier
decision. Autostrade then sued the Czech Government in March
in Regional Court in Brno. On October 17, the Regional Court
sided with government saying that Autostrade,s allegations
were groundless. Pecina said it was gratifying to have his
office,s decisions upheld in court.
PRAGUE 00001375 002 OF 002
GRABER