Romania’s High Court of Cassation and Justice has officially put an end to a decade-long legal battle by upholding a ruling that SC Hewlett-Packard Romania, now operating as Enterprise Services Romania, abused its dominant market position. The definitive ruling confirms a 2015 decision by the Romanian Competition Council, which penalized the tech giant for stifling local competition in the business-segment inkjet printer market.
The case dates back to 2015 when the antitrust watchdog hit HP Romania with a fine of nearly 3 million lei, roughly equivalent to 665,000 euros. The regulator found that HP Romania had abused its market power by prematurely and unjustifiably terminating a contract that provided special pricing on HP consumables to four of its local commercial partners. These partners, who were supplying a major corporate client, had their contracts cut short by five months without any objective justification or prior explanation from HP.
During the investigation, the tech firm failed to prove that the abrupt cancellations were based on valid contractual termination clauses, nor could it demonstrate that all four partners had simultaneously violated their agreements. While HP maintained its general partnerships with three of the local vendors, it specifically axed this single lucrative contract. Immediately afterward, HP Romania secured a new exclusive agreement with only one of the original partners, S&T Romania, which was part of an international group already holding multiple contracts with HP at the European Union level.
Bogdan Chirițoiu, the president of the Romanian Competition Council, noted that the High Court’s decision validates their investigation into HP Romania’s unfair practices, which penalised local suppliers who had done nothing wrong in order to favor an international partner. HP Romania initially challenged the fine in court, but the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the action as unfounded. The High Court of Cassation and Justice has now rejected the company’s final appeal, permanently cementing the antitrust authority’s decision and the financial penalty.
