1. Press Release C. 19-12
th
El Salvador, July 5 , 2012.
Constitutional Tribunal admitted lawsuit
filed by the CS regarding MOLSA case
The Constitutional Tribunal of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ) admitted a lawsuit filed by the
Competition Superintendence (CS) defending a resolution issued by the CS imposing sanctions to
MOLSA and HARISA due to the commission of the anticompetitive practice, agreement between
competitors. Consequently, the sentence pronounced by the Administrative Contentious Tribunal
(ACT) is unenforceable until the Constitutional Tribunal analyzes and decides with respect to the
aforementioned lawsuit. The CS expects the process to be agile and with a favorable final decision
that allows the anticompetitive practices to cease, benefiting economic efficiency and consumer
welfare.
The CS sanctioned MOLSA and HARISA, wheat flour manufacturers, in 2008, for
“The investigation that
allocating the wheat flour market between themselves with a participation of
proves the
55% and 45%, respectively, of the total of sales. The Salvadoran competition
anticompetitive practices
authority ordered the economic agents to cease the practices and imposed
committed by MOLSA
MOLSA a fine totaling US$1,971,015.16 and HARISA a fine amounting
and HARISA is technically
US$2,061,406.20
and legally very well
based pursuant to the MOLSA filed recourse before the Administrative Contentious Tribunal (ACT) of
Competition Law. Every the (SCJ) adducing alleged illegalities in the investigations procedure. The ACT
passing day the harm to decided in favor of MOLSA squashing the CS´ resolution.
the consumer increases
due to the fact that the Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the ACT´s sentence does not deny the
case is in the ACT since existence and proof of the anticompetitive practice sanctioned by the CS,
2008 when the CS issued because there is sufficient evidence in the administrative procedure. Instead,
its final decision”, the ACT alleged errors not committed by the CS but apparent errors
informed Francisco Diaz committed by the First Civil Judge of the judicial district of San Salvador;
Rodriguez, Chairman of judicial authority who authorized MOLSA´s raid where the CS collected
vital proof against said wheat flour manufacturer.
the BD of the CS.
Amongst these alleged errors figure: insufficient motivation of the judicial search warrant; and improper and
unjustified application of the pertinent legal frame work: the judge applied the civil procedure when allegedly he
should have applied the criminal one.

2. Considering the above cited, the CS filed a lawsuit with the Constitutional Tribunal of the SCJ against the ACT´s
decision because said tribunal acted beyond its legal faculties and did not reason its resolution. The
th
aforementioned lawsuit was admitted for analysis last July 4 , and since the ACT´s decision will temporarily have
no effect, the CS´ resolution must be complied with. Hence, MOLSA and the other economic agent must pay the
fines imposed and cease the proven anticompetitive practices.
New complaints field with respect to the flour market
th
Last June 29 , MOLSA filed a complaint before the CS alleging abuse of dominance apparently committed by
the company UNIMERC de El Salvador S.A. The CS is currently reviewing said complaint in order to determine if
it is admissible or not.
th
In addition, on July 5 the company Agroindustrias Gumarsal S. A. de C. V. filed a complaint before the CS
alleging abuse of dominance and agreement amongst competitors apparently committed by three companies
of the mentioned market. The CS will also review this complaint to determine if it is admissible or not.
Background
th The CS issued a resolution against MOLSA y HARISA for committing
September 4 , 2008
anticompetitive practices.
th
September 12 , 2008 MOLSA y HARISA filed review recourse with the CS.
th The CS´ final resolution is firm and the term to pay the fines and to cease the
October 14 , 2008
practices begins.
th
October 28 , 2008 MOLSA filed a lawsuit against the BD of the CS with the ACT
st
December 1 , 2011 The ACT ruled in favor of MOLSA declaring the CS´ resolution illegal.
th The BD of the CS filed a lawsuit with the Constitutional Tribunal against the ACT´s
March 7 , 2012
decision.
th The Constitutional Tribunal admitted the CS´ lawsuit for analysis and suspended
July 4 , 2012
the effects of the ACT´s ruling.