Sweden (January 1, 2001): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
New page: '''Score = 23''' ''Governed by:'' Competition Act of 14 January 1993 (SFS 1993:20), as last amended per 1 January 2001 (SFS 2000: 1459) (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).... |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Score = | '''Score = 22''' | ||
''Governed by:'' Competition Act of 14 January 1993 (SFS 1993:20), as last amended per 1 January 2001 (SFS 2000: 1459) (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).<ref>Competition Law in the EU, at 1035-1062.</ref> | ''Governed by:'' Competition Act of 14 January 1993 (SFS 1993:20), as last amended per 1 January 2001 (SFS 2000: 1459) (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).<ref>Competition Law in the EU, at 1035-1062.</ref> | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| Scope | | Scope | ||
| Extraterritoriality | | Extraterritoriality | ||
| | | 0 | ||
| | | | ||
|- class="categorydivision" | |- class="categorydivision" | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| | | | ||
| Divestitures | | Divestitures | ||
| | | 1 | ||
| | | Article 36 allows divesting a merger deemed improper | ||
|- class="categorydivision" | |- class="categorydivision" | ||
| Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
| | | | ||
| Public Interest (Pro Authority) | | Public Interest (Pro Authority) | ||
| | | 1 | ||
| | | § 41 allows Stockholm City Court , at the request of the Swedish Competition Authority, to prevent merger from going through due to public interest | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
| Resale Price Maintenance | | Resale Price Maintenance | ||
| 1 | | 1 | ||
| §6(2)(1) has been read as covering a prohibition on RPM. | | §6(2)(1) has been read as covering a prohibition on RPM.<ref>Id. at 419.</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 184: | Line 184: | ||
| | | | ||
| Eliminating Competitors | | Eliminating Competitors | ||
| | | 0 | ||
| | | | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 197: | Line 197: | ||
| Supply Refusal | | Supply Refusal | ||
| 1 | | 1 | ||
| A system using quantitative criteria to refuse to supply a particular company or group of companies is thought to be covered under §6. | | A system using quantitative criteria to refuse to supply a particular company or group of companies is thought to be covered under §6.<ref>Id. at 423</ref> | ||
|- | |- | ||
Latest revision as of 16:47, 25 September 2007
Score = 22
Governed by: Competition Act of 14 January 1993 (SFS 1993:20), as last amended per 1 January 2001 (SFS 2000: 1459) (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).[1]
| Category | Subcategory | Score | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope | Extraterritoriality | 0 | |
| Remedies | Fines | 1 | §26-32 deal with fines for various infringements. |
| Prison Sentences | 0 | ||
| Divestitures | 1 | Article 36 allows divesting a merger deemed improper | |
| Private Enforcement | 3rd Party Initiation | 1 | §23(2) allows 3rd parties to lodge complaints with the MD and order the termination of the infringement. |
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties | 1 | §33 requires infringing companies to pay damages to the parties injured as a result of their violations. | |
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings | 1 | 3rd parties also have a right to appeal KKV decisions. | |
| Merger Notification | Voluntary | 0 | |
| Mandatory | 3 | §37 requires pre-merger notifications for concentrations worth more than a certain monetary threshold. | |
| Pre-merger | 2 | §37 requires pre-merger notifications for concentrations worth more than a certain monetary threshold. | |
| Post-merger | 0 | ||
| Merger Assessment | Dominance | 1 | §34a(2)(1) prohibits concentrations which strengthen or create a dominate position which will significantly restrict competition. |
| Restriction of Competition | 1 | §34a(2)(1) prohibits concentrations which strengthen or create a dominate position which will significantly restrict competition. | |
| Public Interest (Pro D) | 1 | §34a(2)(2) says that an otherwise prohibited merger will be allowed if to ban it would impinge significantly on national interests such as security or supply. | |
| Public Interest (Pro Authority) | 1 | § 41 allows Stockholm City Court , at the request of the Swedish Competition Authority, to prevent merger from going through due to public interest | |
| Other | 0 | ||
| Efficiency | 0 | ||
| Dominance | Limits Access | 1 | §19(2)(2) prohibits limiting production or market access. |
| Abusive Acts | 1 | §19(1) prohibits any abuse by an undertaking in a dominant position. | |
| Price Setting | 1 | §19(2)(1) prohibits price setting. | |
| Discriminatory Pricing | 1 | §19(2)(3) prohibits applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions. | |
| Resale Price Maintenance | 1 | §6(2)(1) has been read as covering a prohibition on RPM.[2] | |
| Obstacles to Entry | 0 | ||
| Efficiency Defense | 0 | ||
| Restrictive Trade Practices | Price Fixing | 1 | §6(2)(1) prohibits price fixing. |
| Tying | 1 | §6(2)(5) prohibits tying. | |
| Market Division | 0 | ||
| Output Restraint | 1 | §6(2)(2) prohibits limiting or controlling production. | |
| Market Sharing | 1 | §6(2)(3) prohibits market sharing. | |
| Eliminating Competitors | 0 | ||
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging | 0 | ||
| Supply Refusal | 1 | A system using quantitative criteria to refuse to supply a particular company or group of companies is thought to be covered under §6.[3] | |
| Efficiency Defense | 1 | §8(1) gives an exemption to the §6 prohibitions for agreements that contribute to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress. |