|
|
| (31 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == Turkey 2005 Pre-Merger Notification == | | == Algeria 2003 Obstacles to Entry == |
|
| |
|
| ''Based on the tense of the language used, it appears to require a pre-merger notification. Moreover, the statute which this one replaced explicitly called for post-merger notification.'' | | ''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 10 - "As of the date the Board is notified of merger or acquisition agreements falling under article 7, the Board is, as a result of the preliminary examination to be performed by it within fifteen days, obliged to permit the merger or acquisition transaction, or if it decides to deal with this transaction under final examination, it is obliged to duly notify, with its preliminary objection letter, those concerned of the fact that the merger or acquisition transaction is suspended and '''cannot be put into practice''' until the final decision, together with other measures deemed necessary by it. In this case, the provisions of articles 40-59 of this Act shall be applicable. | | 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; |
|
| |
|
| "'''Where the Board does not respond to or take any action for the application as to a merger or acquisition within due time, merger or acquisition agreements shall take effect''' and become legally valid after 30 days as of the date of the notification."
| | --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 08:01, 11 September 2007 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 14:08, 16 July 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.'' |
|
| |
|
| Agree. From this I think it's reasonable to infer that the notification and assessment occur BEFORE the merger. --[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 16:11, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
| | 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; |
|
| |
|
| == Tanzania 2003 3rd Party Initiation ==
| | --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 08:08, 11 September 2007 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
| Article 69(I)
| | == Egypt 2005 - Collusive Tendering == |
|
| |
|
| The Commission may initiate a complaint against an alleged prohibited practice.
| | Article 6(c) - "Coordinating with regard to proceeding or refraining from participating in tenders, auctions, negotiations and other calls for procurement." |
|
| |
|
| (2) Any person may - | | --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 00:49, 8 October 2007 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
| (a) submit information concerning an alleged prohibited practice
| | == Egypt 2005 - Defenses == |
| to the Commission, in any manner or form; or
| |
|
| |
|
| (b) '''submit a complaint against an alleged prohibited practice to
| | '''Article 9''' |
| the Commission in the prescribed form.'''
| |
|
| |
|
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 16:05, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
| | The provisions of this Law shall not apply to public utilities managed by the State. |
|
| |
|
| I think this counts. Kaj might have told me that this sort of thing (3rd party initiation, but then the competition authority takes over) didn't count. Let's ask Hylton. --[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 16:12, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
| | 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. |
|
| |
|
| Hylton: submitting a complaint is sufficient for 3rd party initiation. However, we do not count "tip lines" or simply reporting an abuse. --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 11:27, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
| | --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 00:58, 8 October 2007 (EDT) |
| | |
| == Tanzania 2003 Merger Assessment Efficiency Defense ==
| |
| | |
| ''Efficiency defense?''
| |
| | |
| Article 13(I)(b)
| |
| | |
| (i) by contributing to greater efficiency in production or
| |
| distribution;
| |
| | |
| (ii) by promoting technical or economic progress;
| |
| | |
| (iii) by contributing to greater efficiency in the allocation of
| |
| resources; or
| |
| | |
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 16:53, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Tanzania 2003 Merger Assessment Public Interest Defense ==
| |
| | |
| ''Public interest defense?''
| |
| | |
| Article 13(I)(b)
| |
| | |
| (iv) by protecting the environment and the merger:
| |
| | |
| (vi) the benefits to the public resulting from the merger
| |
| outweigh the detriments caused by preventing,
| |
| restraining or distorting competition;
| |
| | |
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 16:53, 16 July 2007 (EDT) | |
| | |
| Hylton: yes, protecting the environment is a public interest defense. --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 11:28, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Tanzania 2003 Merger Assessment Business Failure Defense ==
| |
| | |
| Article 13(I)(c) - "in the case of a merger resulting in the change of control of a
| |
| business, the business faces actual or imminent financial
| |
| failure and the merger offers the least anti-competitive
| |
| alternative use of the assets of the business."
| |
| | |
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 16:55, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Tunisia 1994 Dominance Limits Access ==
| |
| | |
| ''This is includes a prohibition against a dominant firm refusing to sell without a valid reason. Is that "Limits Access?"''
| |
| | |
| Article 5 - Abuse of a dominant position or a state of economic dependence can consist in particular purchase or '''refusal to sell''', sales or purchase bound, in minimum price imposed for the resale, in commercial conditions of sale without
| |
| valid reason or with the only reason which the partner refuses to subject to unjustified commercial conditions
| |
| | |
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 05:59, 18 July 2007 (MDT)
| |
| | |
| Hytlon: code this as Limiting Access but include a comment that it's a prohibition against refusing to sell. --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 10:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Thailand 1999 Divestitures ==
| |
| | |
| ''Is this divestiture language?''
| |
| | |
| Section 8 - "The Commission shall have the powers and duties as . . . (2) to issue Notifications prescribing market share and sales volume off any business by reference to which a business operator is deemed to have market domination[.]"
| |
| | |
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 15:01, 18 July 2007 (MDT)
| |
| | |
| == Thailand 1999 3rd Party Remedies ==
| |
| | |
| ''The "claiming compensation" language seems to imply that the 3rd party may initiate an action '''to get money'''.''
| |
| | |
| Section 40 - "The person suffering an injury in consequence of the violation of section 25, section 26, section 27, section 28 or section 29 may initiate an action for '''claiming compensation from the violator'''."
| |
| | |
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 15:09, 18 July 2007 (MDT)
| |
| | |
| == Thailand 1999 Dominance Obstacles to Entry ==
| |
| | |
| ''Would this count as a prohibition against setting obstacles to entry?''
| |
| | |
| Section 25(4) - "[A dominant firm may not act by] intervening in the operation of business of other persons without justifiable reasons."
| |
| | |
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 17:33, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
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)