The investigation was launched following a complaint filed by “Rețele Electrice de Distribuție Nord” SA regarding a possible abuse of a dominant position in the market for the sale of devices for measuring ethanol concentration in exhaled air (breathalyzers). During the investigation, the Competition Council expanded its market analysis, which revealed these details.
As essentially the sole distributor of these specialized products, “from 2017 to 2024, Labromed Laborator SRL held a dominant position in the market for the sale of breathalyzers, included in the State Register of Measuring Instruments, in the market for the sale of compatible mouthpieces, and in the market for the provision of related calibration services”, states the agency’s official presentation of the decision on sanctions.
This dominant position was supported by a very high market share, reaching 100%, as well as the existence of significant legal and technical barriers to market entry, which limited users’ ability to turn to other suppliers.
Why were there no other alternatives?
The law requires all transportation, healthcare, and public safety enterprises to use exclusively breathalyzers registered in the State Register of Measuring Instruments.
During the period under review, the only registered manufacturer was Dräger (Germany), whose sole distributor in the Republic of Moldova was “Labromed Laborator” SRL.
At the same time, the market is very small, demand is low, and market access requires compliance with specific technical and regulatory procedures, which prevented other companies from entering the market.
“The problem arises when legal, technical, or contractual barriers prevent the emergence of alternatives—as happened in this case, where the law required the exclusive use of breathalyzers registered in a single registry, and the registry included a single manufacturer with a single distributor in the Republic of Moldova”, according to the Competition Council.
The antitrust agency concluded that “the systematic overpricing of the goods and services in question constitutes an abuse of a dominant position”.
“Such conduct led to unjustified costs for government agencies and institutions when procuring the relevant goods and services, which directly affected the efficient use of public funds and the state budget”, the agency reported.
Follow our updates
