BAHRAIN Trends and Developments Contributed by: Noor Al Rayes, Bradley Price, Mohamed Al Sari and Raghad Al Matrook, Al Tamimi & Company
Regional comparison: Bahrain and the UAE Bahrain’s competition regime shares many core characteristics with that of the United Arab Emirates, reflecting a broader regional trend towards modern competition regulation. The UAE’s competition frame - work is governed by Federal Decree-Law No 36 of 2023 Regulating Competition, which similarly prohib - its anti-competitive agreements, abuse of a dominant position, and anti-competitive economic concentra - tions while requiring notification of qualifying mergers. Like Bahrain, the UAE applies competition rules on an effects-based basis where conduct outside the juris - diction impacts domestic markets. However, the UAE has recently introduced a more detailed implement - ing framework, including Cabinet Decision No 3 of 2025, which specifies merger notification thresholds and confirms that a dominant position generally exists where an undertaking’s market share exceeds 40% of the relevant market. As both jurisdictions continue to strengthen enforcement, multinational businesses operating across the GCC should adopt harmonised regional competition compliance programmes rather than treating Bahrain and the UAE as separate compli - ance environments. Litigating market dominance and unlawful abuse The legal framework governing market dominance in Bahrain creates significant operational considerations for major commercial enterprises. Under the Com - petition Law, market dominance is defined through explicit, quantitative market share thresholds. A single entity holding a market share exceeding 40% is legally presumed to hold a dominant position in the relevant market. Similarly, a collective group of businesses controlling more than 60% of a market is presumed to hold collective dominance. Crucially, holding a dominant market position is not inherently unlawful under Bahraini competition law. The legal infraction arises strictly when a dominant enterprise abuses its market power to restrict compe - tition or harm rivals. Common examples of prohibited abuse include predatory pricing, exclusive dealing arrangements, tie-in sales, and unjustified refusals to supply essential goods or services. Determining whether specific commercial conduct constitutes
legitimate competition or unlawful abuse requires meticulous legal and economic analysis. Litigation surrounding abuse of dominance typically begins when a smaller competitor files a complaint alleging market foreclosure or unfair squeeze. If the Consumer Protection Directorate finds that an abuse occurred, the victimised competitor can leverage that finding in a civil court to claim extensive dam - ages. Dominant firms must therefore maintain detailed contemporaneous documentation demonstrating the legitimate commercial justifications for their business practices. In particular, firms should be able to dem - onstrate that practices such as volume discounts or exclusive contracts are based on objective economic efficiencies. Demonstrating this is essential to defend - ing against civil claims. Assessing damages, pass-on defence, and expert evidence Quantifying civil damages in antitrust litigation pre - sents unique evidentiary challenges that distinguish competition cases from standard breach-of-contract disputes. Under the Bahrain Civil Code, damages awards are strictly compensatory and aimed at restor - ing the injured party to their baseline position. Courts will award compensation for direct financial losses incurred as well as verifiable loss of profit. However, Bahraini law strictly prohibits punitive, exemplary or speculative damages awards in civil proceedings. To resolve complex financial calculations, Bahraini civil courts routinely appoint independent financial and economic experts from the official judicial roster. These experts are tasked with reviewing corporate ledgers, evaluating market conditions and construct - ing hypothetical economic models to measure the financial impact of anti-competitive behaviour. While expert findings are technically advisory, judges rely heavily on their technical conclusions when deter - mining final damages awards. Consequently, litigat - ing antitrust claims effectively requires presenting persuasive economic expert evidence to support or challenge judicial reports. Another critical economic consideration in damages litigation is the application of the “pass-on” defence. Although not explicitly codified in the Competition
37 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook