User talk:AchalOza: Difference between revisions

From AntitrustWorldWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
AchalOza (talk | contribs)
861 edits
No edit summary
AchalOza (talk | contribs)
861 edits
Egypt 2005 - Defenses
 
(147 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Albania 2003 Public Interest Pro-D ==
== Algeria 2003 Obstacles to Entry ==


Does this sound like a public interest (or efficiency) defense to you?
''Below is Algeria's definition of dominance (using Google Translator).  Does this sound like obstacles to entry language? Perhaps we should have a translator look at it.''


2. Commission may not prohibit concentrations where one of the undertakings risks
Article 3(c) - Dominant Position: the position allowing a company to hold, on the market in question, a position of economic power which '''gives him the capacity to make obstacle with the maintenance of an effective competition''', by providing him the possibility of independent behaviors in an appreciable measurement with respect to its competitors, of its customers or its suppliers;
seriously a failure, there is no less anti­competitive alternative to the concentration, when:


a) this undertaking is in such a situation that without the concentration it would
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 08:01, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
exit the market in the near future;


b) there is no serious prospects of re­organizing the activity of this undertaking.
== Algeria 2000 Tying ==


--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 12:57, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
''One of the criteria for establishing a dominant position includes being able to create advantageous contractual bonds.  Would this just be another abusive act prohibition, or tying under RTP?  Or should this be nothing since it's just establishing what is a dominant position and doesn't say it's an abusive act?  The text below was translated with Google.''


Article 2 - The criteria of determination of the dominant position of an economic agent on a market or a market segment of goods or services are in particular: financial, contractual bonds or in fact which bind the economic agent to one or more economic agents and which get advantages of any nature to him;


I'd ask Hylton about this one. This is the case of when there are two firms, and one will perish if it isn't allowed to merge with the other. Not strictly an efficiency defense, because it won't advance technology, the market, etc.
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 08:08, 11 September 2007 (EDT)


Not public interest, either. Maybe it belongs under "Other."
== Egypt 2005 - Collusive Tendering ==


--[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 17:42, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
Article 6(c) - "Coordinating with regard to proceeding or refraining from participating in tenders, auctions, negotiations and other calls for procurement."


--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 00:49, 8 October 2007 (EDT)


Discussed with Hylton and he said that this "Business Failure" defense should be included as a comment to "Restriction of Trade".  Moreover, he suggested refining the definitions so Efficiency Defense is for benefiting economic cost and public interest is for things like international competitiveness, minority ownership, income distribution, unemployment, national security and the environment.  We should keep an eye out for what else is included under "Other."
== Egypt 2005 - Defenses ==


--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 13:17, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
'''Article 9'''


The provisions of this Law shall not apply to public utilities managed by the State.


However, the Albania statute does not include "Restriction of Trade" in their merger assessment. Is it still appropriate to include "Business Failure" as a comment there?
The Authority may, upon the request of the concerned parties, exempt some or all the acts provided for in articles 6 [on Restrictive Trade Practices], 7 [on Restrictive Trade Practices] and 8 [on Dominance] regarding public utilities that are managed by companies subject to the Private Law where this is in the public interest or for attaining benefits to the consumers that exceed the effects of restricting the freedom of competition. This shall be done in accordance with the regulations and procedures set out by the Executive Regulation of this Law.


--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 13:56, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 00:58, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
 
== El Salvador 1997 ==
 
Note to self: find full Spanish texts and translate into English.  Current dataset is built off of secondary sources.
 
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 09:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
 
== Hong Kong 1998 Obstacles to Entry ==
 
This language sounds like it's a prohibition on setting up obstacles to entry.  However, our "obstacles to entry" is only coded under dominance.  Do you think it still applies to this?
 
6(d) - "unfair or discriminatory standards among members of a trade or professional body intended to deny newcomers a chance to enter or contest in the market, and have the effect of impairing economic efficiency or free trade [are prohibited]."
 
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 09:32, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
 
== Hungary 2005 Dom. Efficiency Defense ==
 
Does this sound like an efficiency defense to you guys?
 
21(h) - "[It shall be prohibited to abuse a dominant position, particularly:] to set extremely low prices '''which are not based on greater efficiency''' in comparison with that of competitors and which are likely to drive out competitors from the relevant market or to hinder their market entry;"
 
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 12:04, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
 
== India 1991 Public Interest Def. ==
 
This statute seems to allows a public interest defense.  However, it applies to "monopolistic trade practices" and not to explicitly to merger assessment, do you think it counts?
 
32. MONOPOLISTIC TRADE PRACTICE TO BE DEEMED TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST EXCEPT IN CERTAIN CASES.
 
For the purposes of this Act, every monopolistic trade practice shall be deemed to be prejudicial to the public interest, except where -
 
(a) such trade practice is expressly authorised by any enactment for the time being in force, or
 
(b) the Central Government, being satisfied that any such trade practice is necessary -
 
(i) '''to meet the requirements of the defence of India or any part thereof, or for the security of the State;''' or
 
(ii) to ensure the maintenance of supply of goods and services essential to the community; or
 
(iii) to give effect to the terms of any agreement to which the Central Government is a party,
 
by a written order, permits the owner of any undertaking to carry on any such trade practice.
 
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 17:45, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
 
== India 1991 Divestures ==
 
I talked to Hylton about this one and said it does count as a divesture.  I'm just posting it here for the sake of consistency.
 
36D(1)(b) - "any agreement relating to such unfair trade practice shall be void or shall stand modified in respect thereof in such manner as may be specified in the order;"
 
--[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 17:58, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 04:58, 8 October 2007

Algeria 2003 Obstacles to Entry

Below is Algeria's definition of dominance (using Google Translator). Does this sound like obstacles to entry language? Perhaps we should have a translator look at it.

Article 3(c) - Dominant Position: the position allowing a company to hold, on the market in question, a position of economic power which gives him the capacity to make obstacle with the maintenance of an effective competition, by providing him the possibility of independent behaviors in an appreciable measurement with respect to its competitors, of its customers or its suppliers;

--AchalOza 08:01, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Algeria 2000 Tying

One of the criteria for establishing a dominant position includes being able to create advantageous contractual bonds. Would this just be another abusive act prohibition, or tying under RTP? Or should this be nothing since it's just establishing what is a dominant position and doesn't say it's an abusive act? The text below was translated with Google.

Article 2 - The criteria of determination of the dominant position of an economic agent on a market or a market segment of goods or services are in particular: financial, contractual bonds or in fact which bind the economic agent to one or more economic agents and which get advantages of any nature to him;

--AchalOza 08:08, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

Egypt 2005 - Collusive Tendering

Article 6(c) - "Coordinating with regard to proceeding or refraining from participating in tenders, auctions, negotiations and other calls for procurement."

--AchalOza 00:49, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Egypt 2005 - Defenses

Article 9

The provisions of this Law shall not apply to public utilities managed by the State.

The Authority may, upon the request of the concerned parties, exempt some or all the acts provided for in articles 6 [on Restrictive Trade Practices], 7 [on Restrictive Trade Practices] and 8 [on Dominance] regarding public utilities that are managed by companies subject to the Private Law where this is in the public interest or for attaining benefits to the consumers that exceed the effects of restricting the freedom of competition. This shall be done in accordance with the regulations and procedures set out by the Executive Regulation of this Law.

--AchalOza 00:58, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?title=User_talk:AchalOza&oldid=1780"