The Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) has unveiled a draft of its new “Methodology for Determining Monopoly (Dominant) Positions.” While the document aims to modernize competition analysis and align Ukrainian legislation with European standards, parts of the project require further refinement to reflect the specific realities of the fuel and energy sector, which has been operating under wartime conditions for four years.
A Market Transformed by War
The past few years have been an unprecedented test for the Ukrainian fuel market. The destruction of tank farms and gas stations, disrupted logistics, the overhaul of import systems, labor shortages, and constant security risks have fundamentally altered business conditions. Today, the market structure is shaped less by economic factors and more by the consequences of the war.
Official data confirms the scale of this change:
- According to Fuel and Energy Business Association (FEBA) analysis based on State Tax Service data, the number of active retail fuel licenses fell from 6,574 (early 2025) to roughly 5,084 (September 2025).
- Over 2,000 licenses were revoked in 2024, and over 900 in 2025.
- Estimates suggest the total number of gas stations in Ukraine has dropped from approximately 7,700 to 6,000.
“Today, the main challenge for many operators is not competition itself, but physical survival. Assessment of market power must consider not only formal market share but the real conditions of business operation,” says Tetiana Dumenkova, Deputy Head of FEBA.
Key Concerns for the Industry
1. Defining Geographic Boundaries
The draft Methodology suggests that a company with a share exceeding 35% may be deemed to have a dominant position unless it proves otherwise. However, the definition of “geographic boundaries” is critical. A small regional network could temporarily exceed a 35% share in a single community simply because other competitors were forced to close due to the war. Without clear criteria, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face the risk of being unfairly classified as “dominant” due to artificial conditions.
2. The Challenge of “Collective Dominance”
The project introduces mechanisms for identifying “collective dominant positions.” In a fuel market highly dependent on imports and state regulations, independent operators—who do not coordinate strategies—could formally fall under these criteria due to regional market structures, potentially leading to unintended regulatory penalties.
3. War Economy vs. Classical Analysis
The Methodology proposes standard tools like the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). While standard in the EU/US, these require adaptation for Ukraine. High market concentration today is often a result of destroyed infrastructure and logistical instability—not anti-competitive behavior. Using these tools without adjusting for wartime factors risks producing mathematically correct but economically flawed results.
4. Administrative and Vertical Integration Issues
The fuel sector is already one of the most heavily regulated industries in Ukraine (licensing, customs, excise controls, etc.). SMEs, lacking the massive resources of large vertically integrated companies, are the most vulnerable to this burden. Furthermore, FEBA warns that investments in logistics resilience and storage—which are essential for supply continuity during attacks—should not be misconstrued as signs of market dominance.
FEBA’s Call to Action
FEBA advocates for revising the draft Methodology to reflect wartime specificities. The Association emphasizes that:
- Geographic definitions must be transparent and predictable.
- Wartime factors must be included to avoid misinterpreting infrastructure destruction as anti-competitive behavior.
- SME Protection: Regulation should not create additional risks for compliant, smaller market players.
The goal of competition policy today should not be limited to identifying potential abuses; it must also preserve the resilience of critical markets. The fuel sector is the backbone of the economy, logistics, and defense; therefore, new rules must protect competition without compromising the viability of the businesses that keep the country fueled during the war.
