- 1 Test (Date) Section
- 2 Cyprus (1999)
- 3 Czech Republic (2004)
- 4 Cote d'Ivoire (1991)
- 5 Chile (1973)
- 6 Colombia (1992)
- 7 Canada (2000)
- 8 China (1993, 1997)
- 9 Cameroon (1998)
- 10 Costa Rica
- 11 Sweden (2001)
- 12 Croatia (2003)
- 13 Greece (2000)
- 14 Poland (2000)
- 15 Slovenia (2004)
- 16 Serbia - Montenegro (2005)
- 17 South Africa
- 18 Switzerland (October, 1995)
- 19 Pakistan (1970)
- 20 Phillipines (1992)
- 21 Portugal (1993)
- 22 Eliminating Competitors Questions (revisited)
- 23 Guyana (2004)
- 24 Spain (1999)
- 25 Greenland (1992)
- 26 Benin Updates
Test (Date) Section
--Kajrozga 11:12, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
--JWSchneider 16:13, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
42.-(1) Where the Commission exercises the powers granted under section 41 and subject to the provisions of section 47, it may, following a study of the relevant reports of the Service, order the dissolution or partial dissolution of a concentration, in order to secure the restoration of the competitive market.
Divestiture = 1 ???
Agreed, this is divestiture. --JWSchneider 15:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
4.—(1) Any enterprise agreement having as its object or effect the elimination, restriction or distortion of competition, in particular an agreement which— . . .
RTP: Eliminating Competitors = 1 ???
--Kajrozga 11:46, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Agreed. This is eliminating competitors. --JWSchneider 15:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Czech Republic (2004)
Suspension of implementation of concentrations
(2) Where the Office finds that the undertakings have implemented the concentration without notification of the concentration, it may impose on the undertakings a duty to sell the interests, transfer the enterprise acquired by the concentration or a part thereof, terminate an agreement or take any other measures that may be necessary for restoring effective competition in the relevant market.
Divestiture = 1????
--Kajrozga 11:57, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Sounds a whole lot like divestiture, and certainly keeps it general enough that the admin bodies might impose it. This is a question for Hylton, I think.
--JWSchneider 15:14, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Cote d'Ivoire (1991)
From a secondary source: SECTION 2: DESCRIPTION OF PRACTICES, ACTIONS AND BEHAVIOUR SUBJECT TO REVIEW
Ivorian legislation distinguishes between practices which result from individual behaviour (restrictive practices) and those which arise from concerted actions (anti-competitive practices).
1. CONCERTED OR ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES There is a blanket ban on these practices, but exemption may be granted under article 10 in the case of those which arise from the application of a law or regulation or which would generate economic progress for the community as a whole
---Question 1: Seems like this Article 10 efficiency defense only applies to RTPs. Is that how you guys would read it?---
Since this is a secondary source, I'd just interpret it as narrowly as possible. --JWSchneider 15:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
1.1. Agreements (article 7 L) Article 7 defines agreements as accords, concerted practices and decisions to associate or collective recommendations emanating from natural or legal persons, public or private.
This article prohibits any concerted action, agreement, alliance or arrangement, express or tacit, which has the purpose of or may have the effect of hampering or limiting free competition, in particular when the action tends to: . . .
---Question 2: RTP: Eliminating Competitors = 1 ????---
--Kajrozga 13:15, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Def a question for Hylton. Funny how they say "we define agreements as accords." Kind of redundant. --JWSchneider 15:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Found the primary source on Chile, this is gonna be a bloodbath...
"Anyone executing or going into individually or collectively any fact, act or convention tending to impede free-competition within the country in economic activities, both in that of internal character and concerning external trade activities, shall be punished with petty imprisonment in any of its degrees."
I don't think that counts as extraterritoriality, as it requires actions within the state. --AchalOza 07:49, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Question: Too broad to tabulate "Restriction of Competition" under Mergers?
I think this article's point is to define scope and doesn't specifically talk to merger assessment. --AchalOza 07:49, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
"To the effects provided in the foregoing article, it will be considered among others, as facts, acts or conventions tending to impede free-competition, the following:
"a. Those referred to production, such as quota distribution, reductions or stagnation of them;" b. Those referred to commerce or distribution, whether wholesaler or retailer, such as quota distribution . . . "
Question: Market Division = 1 ?
Hmmm, I'm not sure what quota distribution counts as. Probably should ask Hylton. --AchalOza 07:49, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Hylton: Market Sharing = 1 --Kajrozga 22:14, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
"f. Generally, any other measure tending to eliminate, restrict or hindering free-competition."
Question: Eliminating Competitors = 1 ?
Agreed. --AchalOza 07:49, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
"[Empowers a commission to:] 2. To order the modification or dissolution of the companies, corporations and other juridical persons of private law, that have been a party in such acts, contracts, covenants, systems or agreements referred to in the foregoing number; 4. To impose fines for the benefit of the Government up to an amount equivalent to ten thousand tributary units. The fines shall be judiciously regulated according to the working capital or"
Question: Divestiture = 1 ?
Agreed. --AchalOza 07:49, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
[Speaking about monopolies:] "Notwithstanding, the execution or the maintenance of those acts or contracts referred to in the foregoing articles could be authorized, provided that the national interest may require it and that they are necessary for the stability or development of national investments"
Question: Efficiency Defense = 1 ?
Agreed. --AchalOza 07:49, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
"The Preventative Commissions and the Prosecutor's Office to which the foregoing articles referred to, shall receive and investigate, as the case may be, all the accusations made by private individuals in relation to the acts or contracts that may imply an infringement to the rules of the present law."
Question: 3rd Party Initiation = 1 ?
Agreed. --AchalOza 07:49, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
--Kajrozga 12:49, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
A Secondary source states of prohibitions concerning agreements:
"Practices whose purpose or effect is to establish conditions of sale or marketing which are discriminatory visàvis third parties;"
Question 1: What does that sound like? Discriminatory pricing? tying?
Jake: I'd say tying. --JWSchneider 17:28, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
"Practices whose purpose or effect is the assignment, sharing limiting of sources of supply of production inputs;"
Question 2: Is this supply refusal?
"Practices whose purpose or effect is the assignment, sharing or limiting of sources of supply of production inputs;" Question 3: Market Division? Supply refusal?
Jake: I say this is BOTH market division and supply refusal. --JWSchneider 17:28, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Ladies the gentlemen, the antitrust super-statute:
"Any person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of
a) conduct that is contrary to any provision of Part VI, or
b) the failure of any person to comply with an order of the Tribunal or another court under this Act,
may, in any court of competent jurisdiction, sue for and recover from the person who engaged in the conduct or failed to comply with the order an amount equal to the loss or damage proved to have been suffered by him, "
Question 1: 3rd Party Initiation + Remedies available to 3rd party?
Jake: I think both of these apply. --JWSchneider 17:34, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
"Every one who conspires, combines, agrees or arranges with another person:
to prevent, limit or lessen, unduly, the manufacture or production of a product or to enhance unreasonably the price thereof,"
Question 2: RTPs - Price setting ?
Hylton: Price setting + output restraint
Jake: Not price-setting, but looks a lot like supply refusal or limiting - anything that would artificially cause greater demand. --JWSchneider 17:34, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
"No person who is engaged in the business of producing or supplying a product, who extends credit by way of credit cards or is otherwise engaged in a business tha t relates to credit cards, or who has the exclusive rights and privileges conferred by a patent, trade-mark, copyright, registered industrial design or registered integrated circuit topography, shall, directly or indirectly,
a) by agreement, threat, promise or any like means, attempt to influence upward, or to discourage the reduction of, the price . . .
For the purposes of this section, a suggestion by a producer or supplier of a product of a resale price or minimum resale price . . . proof of an attempt to influence the person to whom the suggestion is made in accordance with the suggestion.?
Question 3: This sounds like resale price maintenance, but there's all that stuff about credit cards, etc. What do you gents think?
Hylton: It's broad enough to be coded as RPM.
"(a) squeezing, by a vertically integrated supplier, of the margin available to an unintegrated customer who competes with the supplier, for the purpose of impeding or preventing the customer's entry into, or expansion in, a market;
(b) acquisition by a supplier of a customer who would otherwise be available to a competitor of the supplier, or acquisition by a customer of a supplier who would otherwise be available to a competitor of the customer, for the purpose of impeding or preventing the competitor's entry into, or eliminating the competitor from, a market;"
Question 4: Obstacles to entry?
Jake: Obstacles to entry for sure. --JWSchneider 17:34, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
"(e) pre-emption of scarce facilities or resources required by a competitor for the operation of a business, with the object of withholding the facilities or resources from a market"
Question 5: Limits Access?
Jake: Yup. --JWSchneider 17:34, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
"For the purpose of this section, the Tribunal shall not find that a merger or proposed merger prevents or lessens, or is likely to prevent or lessen, competition substantially solely on the basis of evidence of concentration or market share."
Question 6: This implies that it does consider "dominance" in the merger calculus. So should I code "dominance" as a "1"?
Jake: Yeah, it considers it, then dismisses it. I'd ask Hylton about this one. --JWSchneider 17:34, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Hylton: It's enough that it considers dominance as part of the calculus.
"In determining, for the purpose of section 92, whether or not a merger or proposed merger prevents or lessens, or is likely to prevent or lessen, competition substantially, the Tribunal may have regard to the following factors:
(a) the extent to which foreign products or foreign competitors provide or are likely to provide effective competition to the businesses of the parties to the merger or proposed merger;" (b) whether the business, or a part of the business, of a party to the merger or proposed merger has failed or is likely to fail;"
Question 7: part (a) is "international competitiveness", which should mean that "Public Interest - Pro Defendant" will be coded as a "1" under Mergers?
Jake: Part (a) is national champion language. You're right. --JWSchneider 17:34, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Question 8: part (b) is "business failure," which means "Other" will be coded "1"
Jake: Yep. --JWSchneider 17:34, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
China (1993, 1997)
"Article 38: Government price departments shall establish a system for reporting acts of violation of the price law.
Any unit or individual has the right to report acts of violation of price law and the government price departments shall encourage such reporting and undertake to keep secret what concerns concerning the reporters."
Question 1: 3rd Party intitiation?
Jake: Yep. Reporting to an agency that initiates its own proceedings counts. --JWSchneider 17:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Hylton: This is NOT 3rd party initiation. It's just "reporting," which does not necessarily mean an initiation of proceedings. --Kajrozga 09:55, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
"An operator shall not sell its or his goods at a price that is below the cost for the purpose of excluding its or his competitors."
Question 2: Dominance - Price setting?
Jake: Looks a lot more like predatory pricing. --JWSchneider 17:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Question for Hylton: Isn't predatory pricing a FORM of price setting? If no other mention of price setting is made for Dominance, shouldn't this be enough to code price setting udner Dominance?
Hylton: If predatory pricing is the only type of price provision, then code it as a "1" under price setting. If a general price setting provision exists, cite to that. Maintain separate list of predatory pricing.
--Kajrozga 09:57, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
"Article 14: Business operators must not act whatsoever in the following ways to effect abnormal price behaviors:
1. To work collaboratively with others to control market prices to great detriments to the lawful rights and interests of other business operators or consumers;"
Question 3: RTPs - Price setting?
Jake: Yup, price setting. --JWSchneider 17:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Section 16: The following factors shall be taken into account in the appreciation of the anticompetitive nature of a merger or an acquisition:
- obstacles to the entry of new competitors into the market, notably tariff and non-tariff barriers on imports;
- the degree of competition between the autonomous decision-making centres in the market;
- the eventuality of the disappearance from the market of an enterprise which is party to the merger or acquisition, or the assets transferred.
Question 1: As to the second element, "Other" under Merger Assessment (business failure)?
Agreed, looks like a business failure defense. You might want to mention this one to Hylton so he'll know there are more statutes with this defense. --AchalOza 15:29, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Question 2: The original coder had cited this Article for "Dominance" under Merger Assessment. Do you guys see this anywhere in this article? Otherwise, I'm coding it as a "0".
I'm not sure, maybe the "degree of competition" is a reference to dominance? --AchalOza 15:29, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Ask Hylton on this one
"... this law prohibit and penalize public and private monopolies and monopolistic practices that impede or restrain competition, access of competitors to markets or removal of competitors from markets... (Article 10)"
Question 1: Would restricting a competitor's access to markets or removal of competitors from markets be forms of "obstacles to entry"?
"The law defines total monopolistic practices as acts, contracts, agreements, understandings, or cooperation among competing economic agents for any of the following purposes: . . . b) establishing the obligation to produce, process, distribute, or sell a set or limited quantity of goods or provide a restricted or limited frequency, volume, or number of services;
Question 1: "limits access" = 1???
Jake: Limits access looks about right. --JWSchneider 17:37, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
"Partial monopolistic practices shall be considered those involving acts, contracts, agreements, understandings, or cooperation whose effect is or could be improper displacement of other economic agents from the market, substantial impediment to their market access, or the establishment of exclusive advantage for one or several persons in the following cases: b) the setting of prices to other terms a distributor or provider must comply with when selling or distributing goods or providing services;"
Question 1: Would we cross-code "tying" in this situation? They say it only applies to "partial monopolistic practices," but in defining that term, it basically describes RTPs.
Jake: Tying gets cross-coded, so yeah. --JWSchneider 17:37, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Question for hylton on 3rd party initiation:
"When a complaint is received or on its own initiative, the Technical Support Unit makes a preliminary investigation of the facts in order to determine if there is reasonable evidence to show that a party has engaged in a practice prohibited by Law, such as to justify the initiation of administrative proceedings. After its investigation, the Unit presents a report to the Commission with its recommendation. This report must include an analysis of such aspects as the legal standing of the complainant, observance of the minimum requirements established in the General Law of Public Administration, and the items of evidence submitted. (Article 34 of the Regulations).
If the Commission determines from its initial analysis that none of the indicated situations exists, or there is insufficient evidence of them, it shall reject the complaint and close the case. If it finds to the contrary, the Commission shall order an administrative trial based on the result of the investigation, to be carried out by the Technical Support Unit. (Article 35 of the Regulations)."
Question 1: This sounds like a complaint requires a mandatory investigation by the commission. This is more than just a "tip line".
Hylton: This is a formal complaint system, so YES, this would be 3rd party initiation.
"(2) A concentration shall be prohibited, if:
2. if a prohibition can be issued without significantly setting aside national security or essential supply interests. Act (2000:88). "
Question 1: How would you code this? They are considering national security before prohibiting a concentration, so would this be "public interest (Pro Defendant)"? --Kajrozga 18:47, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Jake: Agreed. --JWSchneider 17:39, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
"(1) If it is sufficient to eliminate the adverse effects of a concentration, a party to a concentration, instead of being subject to a prohibition pursuant to Article 34 a, may instead be required:
1. to divest an undertaking, or a part of an undertaking, or"
Question 1: Divestiture?
--Kajrozga 18:47, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Jake: If this is under the dominance part of the statute, I say yes. If this is under merger, then it's an unwinding, so no. Might want to ask Hylton on this one. --JWSchneider 17:39, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Hylton: This is a divestiture. It clearly allows commission to REQUIRE a divestiture (and doesn't just make it a condition for merger approval).
"3) Where the Agency considers that the implementation of the concentration concerned could have as its effect considerable prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in the relevant market, it shall order the initiation of the proceedings for the purpose of evaluating the compatibility of the concentration concerned, and within three months following the day of the procedural order on instituting the proceedings, render its decision: ... 3. by which the concentration concerned is evaluated as conditionally compatible, provided that certain measures are observed and conditions met . . ."
Question 1: Jake once asked a question about this kind of "conditions" language in relation to "divestitures." What did hylton say?
Hylton: NO. Conditional merger is not enough for divestiture.
--Kajrozga 19:14, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
"(2) By the decision referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article, the Agency may, in particular: 1. order for the shares or share capital acquired to be transferred or divested;"
Question 1: Divestiture = 1?
--Kajrozga 19:18, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Jake: Tough one. Ask Hylton. --JWSchneider 17:41, 9 July 2007 (EDT) Hylton: YES.
"The Agency shall, in exceptions, not institute the proceedings in the sense of paragraph (1) of this Article, if it finds that the related activity in the market . . . has insignificant effect on development and maintenance of efficient competition, i.e. that the initiation of such proceedings is not in the public interest."
Question 1: It's talking in a very general sense, but it sounds like a public interest defense. This is too broad to code under any particular category, right?
--Kajrozga 21:11, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Jake: Another tough one. I'd ask Hylton.
Hylton: NO. Too broad.
"1. The following shall be prohibited: all agreements between undertakings, all decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices of whatsoever kind, which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, and in particular those which:
d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby impeding competition in particular by refusing without valid justification to sell, purchase or conclude any other transaction;
Question 1: First bolded party seems like RTPs- "restrict competition"?
Jake: Yes. --JWSchneider 17:42, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Question 2: It's not clear about whom you can't refuse to sell to. It seems like it's just an example of a type of "price discrimination." I'm leaning towards NOT coding this as "supply refusal" under RTPs. What do you guys think?
--Kajrozga 21:18, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Jake: I think today Hylton said this would be supply refusal. Achal? --JWSchneider 17:42, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
"[Prohibited acts by dominant firm:] 3) application in similar transactions with third parties onerous or not homogenous contract terms, thus creating for these parties diversified conditions of competition,"
Question 1: Price Discrimination?
Jake: Wow. What an ambiguous statement. I have no idea. --JWSchneider 17:44, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Question 2: Are we cross-coding "price discrimination" if we find it under RTPs but not dominance? If we are, then NOTE TO SELF: Article 5 (4) should be used to code price discr. under Dominance.
Jake: The only cross-coding I know of is tying. --JWSchneider 17:44, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Hylton: We do not cross-code price discrimination. But we treat it as a form of price fixing and put a comment under price fixing (under RTPs).
Under prohibited Dominance activities, the statute lists: "8) division of market according to territorial, product, or entity-related criteria." This is clearly market division, which is in our data set under RTPs. Ask Hylton if we should cross-code this w/ RTPs? An alternative is to mark it under "obstacles to entry" under Dominance, instead.
--Kajrozga 13:12, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Jake: Maybe we should get Hylton to give us a final list of what is cross-coded, and what isn't. --JWSchneider 17:44, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Hylton: We do not cross-code Market Division. This element is just trying to get at price discr. and limiting output.
"2. The President of the Office may impose upon the entrepreneur or entrepreneurs intending to perform the concentration an obligation, or accept their obligation, in particular: 1) to divest the entirety or a part of the property of one or more entrepreneurs, 2) to divest control over an entrepreneur or entrepreneurs, in particular by divesting a set of stocks or shares, or to dismiss one or several entrepreneurs from the position in the management/ or supervisory board"
Question 1: This sounds exactly like what we talked about today with hylton on divestitures relating to mergers. Divestiture = 1 ?? --Kajrozga 21:10, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
I agree, sounds exactly like divestiture. --AchalOza 18:08, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
"2. The President of the Office shall, by way of a decision, issue a consent to perform a concentration resulting from which competition in the market will be significantly restricted, in particular by emergence or strengthening of dominant position, in any case that desistance from banning concentration is justifiable, and in particular: 1) the concentration is expected to contribute to economic development or technological progress;"
Question 1: Efficiency Defense = 1 ? --Kajrozga 21:18, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Agreed, that's an efficiency defense. --AchalOza 18:08, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
"Article 45a. Everyone shall be entitled to submit, in a written form, on his or her own initiative or upon request of the President of the Office, explanations concerning the essential circumstances of a given case."
Question 1: 3rd Party rights? It's very vague as to what those rights are other than some kind of form. --Kajrozga 21:27, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
That doesn't sound like 3rd party rights to me. This language seems to require 3rd parties to do something instead of granting them the rights to evidence or something like that. --AchalOza 18:08, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
3rd party rights is defined by, "Third parties have access to evidence and/or can testify or otherwise participate in proceedings." So, I believe this counts. --JWSchneider 16:15, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
"(1) Agreements between undertakings regarding business conditions in the market which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in the Republic of Slovenia shall be prohibited and shall be null and void."
Question 1: This is under the RTPs section. It's not explicit, but would they go out of their way to phrase it like this if they didn't mean extraterrit? I think extraterrit = 1.
"(4) If the Office issues the decision referred to in the third paragraph [Office finds that the concentration is incompatible with the provisions of this Act], it may attach to its decision measures with a view to eliminate the effects of the prohibited concentration which have already occurred (demerger of undertakings, demerger of assets, sale of interests, sale of securities, or other appropriate measures)."
Question 1: This sounds like a divestiture power AFTER the merger has occurred. Divestiture = 1 ?
"If damage has been caused by any action prohibited in accordance with this Act, the person who has suffered damage may claim compensation in accordance with law of obligation rules."
Question 1: 3rd party remedies = 1 ?
Note self: Ask hylton about Article 12(2). The title is "prior notification," but the actual test seems to imply a post-merger notification. We need to specify what is considered "post-merger" (post agreement? post-publication of bid to public?, etc.) Hylton: pre merger notification
"(1) The Office shall appraise the concentrations within the meaning of this Act primarily with a view to establishing whether or not it exists a threat of creating or strengthening of a dominant position as a result of which effective competition could be excluded or significantly impeded. The threat shall be appraised in view of competition parameters, and in particular in view of: . . . the level of international competitiveness of the undertakings under appraisal;"
Question 1: Public Interest (Pro D) = 1???? (int'l competitiveness)
Note to self: Ask hylton about Article 10(2): Look at context of Article 10(2). It talks about dominance in terms of eliminating competitors. It also talks about barriers to entry. Is the paragraph a justification for coding obstacles to entry? It seems to be just describing what a dominant position is, and not what is prohibited by it.
Hylton: NO. just a definition, no prohibition mentioned.
Serbia - Montenegro (2005)
Article 54 - “Persons notifying Commission of the conduct preventing, restricting or distorting competition are entitled to information on the proceedings and have a right for access to file . . .“
Question: 3rd party intitiation?
Note to self: ASK HYLTON about public interest.
Hylton: We decided to code it just for public interest(pro auth.)
Note to self: Ask hylton about Article 14: it seems to imply that market division is prohibited (“exclusive distribution,” “exclusive allocation of clients,” “exclusive sale or supply”) if not exempt
Hylton: NO, it's about vertical agreement, not applicable to RTP - market division.
" An agreement between, or concerted practice by, firms, or a decision by an association of firms, is prohibited if it is between parties in a horizontal relationship and if . . . it has the effect of substantially preventing, or lessening, competition in a market,"
Question 1: RTPs - Eliminating Competitiors = 1 ?
[Listing prohibited acts for dominant firms: "( ) selling goods or services on condition that the buyer purchases separate goods or services unrelated to the object of a contract, or forcing a buyer to accept a condition unrelated to the object of a contract;"
Question 1: Tying = 1 under RTPs?
Switzerland (October, 1995)
"all agreements that lead to the suppression of effective competition are unlawful."
Question 1L Duhhh... RTPs - eliminating competition = 1 ?
Article 5 prohibits agreements that "allocate markets geographically or according to trading partners."
Question 1: Original coder marked this as both market division and market sharing. Is that correct?
In regards to RTPS: "- the under-cutting of prices or other conditions directed against a specific competitor;"
Question 1: Is this enough for predatory pricing?
In regards to RTPs: "the conclusion of contracts only on condition that partners agree to supply additional goods or services"
Question 1: Tying? (Cross-code w/ dominance)
In regards to conditional mergers: "If the Commission does not receive the proposals it has requested or if it rejects them, it may order: a) separation of the concentrated enterprises or assets; b) cessation of the effects of control; c) other measures to re-establish effective competition."
Question 1: Divestiture = 1?
Article 14 - "(2) Where the Authority receives from not less than twenty-live persons a complaint in writing of such facts as constitute a contravention of the provisions of section 3, it shall, unless it is of opinion that the application is frivolous or vexatious or based on insufficient facts, conduct a special enquiry into the matter to which the complaint relates."
Question: 3rd party initiation?
Article 7(2) -
7. Other circumstances constituting concentration of economic power, etc:- (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of sections 4, 5 and 6, the Authority may by General Order prescribe the circumstances in which and the conditions under which undue concentration of economic power or unreasonable monopoly power shall be deemed to exist and the practices which shall be deemed to be unreasonably restrictive trade practices. (2)Where the Authority is of opinion that the making of a General Order under sub-section (1) may be in the public interest, it shall conduct an inquiry affording the persons or undertakings likely to be affected by such Order such opportunity of being heard and of placing before it relevant facts and material as it may be deem fit.
Question: Public Int. (Pro Auth)?
General question: Article 6(b) - Do we cross-code RPM?
Note to self: Ask Hylton whether Section 2 or Section 5 warrant "output restraint"
Article 2(1) "All agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices, in whatever form, which have as their object or effect the prevention, distortion or restriction of competition in the national market or a part thereof are prohibited, in particular those which:"
Question: RTP - Eliminating Competitors?
Eliminating Competitors Questions (revisited)
1. Serbia-Montenegro: Article 2(1) 2. Slovenia: Article 5(1) 3. Switzerland: Article 5(1) 4. Spain: Article 1(1)(d) 5. Cyprus: Article 4(1)(d) 6. Greece: Article 1(d)
Article 15 says notification can occur after merger occurred, but that merger is not valid until it's been approved. Also, mergers that fall under Article 14 require pre-merger approval. How do we code this mess?
Article 1(1)(d): [listing prohibited RTPs:] "d) Apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions in commercial or Service relations, thereby placing some competitors at a competitive disadvantage."
Section 12: "which may imply total or partial termination of agreements, decisions, stipulations or business conditions."
Belgium: Can't find 1991 statute text.
Denmark: Can't find 2002 statute text.
--Kajrozga 17:41, 21 November 2007 (EST)