Delta filed the complaint yesterday against Barać with the public prosecution at the Second District Court, accusing her of abuse of authority, said company lawyer Goran Draganić.

“Barać has publicly issued a series of untruths and inaccurate generalizations bereft of any proof or legal grounds, and has overstepped the limits of her authority, thus bringing untold harm to Delta. With her sweeping generalizations, she has instigated a negative media campaign against Serbia’s biggest private company,” Draganić told daily Večernje Novosti.

He said that the prosecution should establish whether Barać had acted within her mandate, or had rather overstepped and seriously abused her position.

“She expressed the Council’s view publicly, which is entirely without any legal grounds. And, as Council president, she is exerting unjustified public pressure on the Competition Commission both in the C Market case, and in Delta’s presence on the market,” added Draganić.

In the lawyer’s opinion, the Council’s first instance ruling was an arbitrary, generalized evaluation that Delta’s presence on the market exceeded 40 percent, and was not substantiated by any relevant documentation.

“That’s why the ruling has been passed to the Supreme Court. Such claims require serious market analysis. The Chamber of Commerce undertook to do this, and in its report, rejected the Commission’s allegations.

"The Commission will now decide again, but Barać has been making lots of public appearances, has been accusing Delta of monopolism, has been saying that the company has been abusing its monopolist position, all in the absence of a single argument. In this manner, she’s been inflaming public opinion and is exerting pressure on the Commission, which in turn leads to legal uncertainty,” said Draganić.

“Even the law states that you can have market share of over 40 percent, without having a dominating influence. Only abuse of a dominant position can be penalized,” he added.

The lawyer stressed that Delta worked in line with the law, and that it was “obvious that a media campaign was being led against the company founded on inaccurate information and tendentiously placed disinformation.”