On 2 April 2026, the Competition Council (CC) adopted a decision finding a prohibited vertical agreement between the distributor of JURA coffee machine (JURA products) Rickman Trade OÜ and its Latvian branch (Rickman Trade), and retailers “EUGESTA” SIA (EUGESTA) and SIA “Innocent PRO” (Innocent PRO) through long-term maintenance of fixed resale prices for JURA products in Latvia. The undertakings were fined a total of EUR 512 100, 17 for participating in the prohibited agreement.
Rickman Trade is the exclusive distributor of JURA products in the Baltic states and operates both as a wholesaler and retailer of JURA products. EUGESTA’s branch “KAFO” and Innocent PRO are retailers of JURA products. Rickman Trade, EUGESTA and Innocent PRO sell JURA products both in physical stores and online. Unlike Rickman Trade, EUGESTA and Innocent PRO distribute products from various manufacturers.
Resale price maintenance and monitoring
In its decision, the CC established that Rickman Trade determined the prices at which retailers were permitted to sell JURA products to end consumers. Although a wholesaler may provide non-binding price recommendations to retailers, in the present case the CC concluded that Rickman Trade’s “recommendations” amounted in practice to the imposition of minimum resale prices for JURA products, thereby ensuring a uniform price level for JURA products in the Latvian market.
For example, during price monitoring conducted by the CC between 6 June 2024 and 2 December 2024, the CC found that the prices of at least 11 JURA product models in the online stores of Rickman Trade, EUGESTA and Innocent PRO – independent market participants – were predominantly identical and were changed simultaneously.
Rickman Trade actively monitored retailers to ensure compliance with the imposed resale prices for JURA products. Where retailers applied lower prices, Rickman Trade requested explanations, thereby influencing the retailers’ right and obligation to independently determine the prices at which JURA products were sold to end consumers. In addition, Rickman Trade influenced retailers’ promotional periods and the level of discounts applied to JURA products.
The CC found that Innocent PRO and EUGESTA consistently complied with and accepted the retail prices imposed by Rickman Trade for JURA products. In the case of Innocent PRO, the company also actively participated in the implementation of the infringement by monitoring competitors’ prices and reacting to deviations from the resale prices set by Rickman Trade for JURA products, including reporting non-compliant pricing to Rickman Trade, thereby contributing to the enforcement of a uniform pricing policy.
The CC established that the infringement commenced on 20 September 2020 in relation to Rickman Trade and Innocent PRO, and on 17 September 2021 in relation to EUGESTA. The CC determined 5 February 2025 as the end date of the infringement, when procedural actions were carried out by the CC at the premises of Rickman Trade, EUGESTA and Innocent PRO.
Effects of the infringement
As a result of Rickman Trade’s conduct, retailers did not independently determine the retail prices of JURA products. Instead EUGESTA and Innocent PRO aligned their prices of JURA products in accordance with Rickman Trade’s instructions, which contributed to maintaining a uniform price level and eliminated price competition.
Consequently, the market for JURA products developed in such a way that prices offered by several retailers were identical, thereby limiting consumers’ ability to purchase JURA products at prices formed under competitive market pressure.
Fines imposed
In the course of the investigation, the CC concluded that Rickman Trade was the instigator of the infringement. Innocent PRO played an active role in the infringement, given that it consistently complied with and accepted the prices set by Rickman Trade for JURA products and actively informed Rickman Trade about competitors’ pricing deviations from the imposed resale prices. Meanwhile, EUGESTA, which consistently complied with and accepted the prices imposed by Rickman Trade, played a passive role in the infringement.
At the same time, mitigating circumstances were taken into account in relation to Innocent PRO, which cooperated with the CC during the investigation, voluntarily ceased its participation in the infringement, and entered into a settlement agreement with the CC, acknowledging its liability for the infringement established by the CC.
The CC emphasises that cooperation by undertakings with the authority and participation in settlement procedures contribute to more effective enforcement of competition law, enabling infringements to be terminated more effectively and reducing the administrative burden on the CC. Such conduct is taken into account when determining the amount of fines.
As a result, the highest fine was imposed on Rickman Trade – EUR 255 938, 04 – based on the nature and duration of the infringement. EUGESTA was fined EUR 232 636, 20, while Innocent PRO, in light of the identified mitigating circumstances and its cooperation with the CC within the settlement framework, received a substantially lower fine of EUR 23 525, 93. Accordingly, the total amount of fines imposed on the parties to the case reached EUR 512 100, 17.