Czech Republic (April 4 2001): Difference between revisions

From AntitrustWorldWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
Kajrozga (talk | contribs)
793 edits
No edit summary
KNovak (talk | contribs)
163 edits
No edit summary
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Score = 18'''
'''Score = 19'''


''Governed by:'' Consolidated Act on the Protection of Competition Act No. 143 Coll. of 4 April 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).<ref>The Act adopted EC Treaty Article 81 and 82, so gaps left by the secondary source were filled in using the actual text of the EC Treaty (see http://www.ebrd.com/pubs/legal/lit041k.pdf at 4 and http://www.mutrap.org.vn/upload/books/downloadfiles/SERV-3%20Report%20Charles%20Marquand_eng.pdf. at 27)</ref><ref>Full text of Act was unavailable, a secondary source was found at http://cermakhorejsmyslil.cz/_data/doc/Update1.doc</ref>
''Governed by:'' Consolidated Act on the Protection of Competition Act No. 143 Coll. of 4 April 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).<ref>The Act adopted EC Treaty Article 81 and 82, so gaps left by the secondary source were filled in using the actual text of the EC Treaty (see http://www.ebrd.com/pubs/legal/lit041k.pdf at 4 and http://www.mutrap.org.vn/upload/books/downloadfiles/SERV-3%20Report%20Charles%20Marquand_eng.pdf. at 27)</ref><ref>Full text of Act was unavailable, secondary sources include the 2001 OECD report, found at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/42/2488774.pdf and the 2001 and 2002 Annual Reports of the Office for the Protection of Competition, found at http://www.compet.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/VZ_EN/AR2001_EN.pdf and http://www.compet.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/VZ_EN/AR2002_EN.pdf</ref>


{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
Line 29: Line 29:
| Divestitures
| Divestitures
| 1
| 1
| The Competition Authority can divest an improper merger.  
| The Competition Authority can divest an improper merger.<ref>OECD 2001 at 9</ref>


|- class="categorydivision"
|- class="categorydivision"
Line 59: Line 59:
| Mandatory
| Mandatory
| 3
| 3
|  Merger notification is mandatory
|  Merger notification is mandatory, depending on turnover.<ref>2001 Annual Report at 7</ref>
|-
|-
|  
|  
| Pre-merger
| Pre-merger
| 0
| 2
|
| Merger must be approved by Office for the Protection of Competition prior to realization.<ref>2001 Annual Report at 7; 2002 Annual Report at 14</ref>
|-
|-
|  
|  
| Post-merger
| Post-merger
| 1
| 0
| The Act requires merger notification "within 7 days from the conclusion of the agreement constituting the merger or from the moment of gaining the control over another competitor."
|  
|- class="categorydivision"
|- class="categorydivision"
Line 77: Line 77:
| Dominance
| Dominance
| 1
| 1
| Merger assessment includes looking at creation of dominant position.  
| Merger assessment includes looking at creation of dominant position.<ref>OECD 2001 at 8</ref>
|-
|-
Line 83: Line 83:
| Restriction of Competition
| Restriction of Competition
| 1
| 1
|  Merger assessment includes looking at the merger's effect on competion in the market.
|  Merger assessment includes looking at the merger's effect on competion in the market.<ref>OECD 2001 at 8</ref>
|-
|-
Line 89: Line 89:
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| Public Interest (Pro D)
| 1
| 1
| When assessing the merger, the Authority considers whether it meets the "needs and interests of consumer" and to consider "research and development for the benefit of the consumers"
| When assessing the merger, the Authority considers whether it meets consumer needs and interests and considers research and development benefits. <ref>OECD 2001 at 9</ref>
|-
|-
Line 107: Line 107:
| Efficiency
| Efficiency
| 0
| 0
| Though the 1992 Act allowed for an efficiency defense, the 2001 Act, as amended in 2004, did not. Therefore, since there is no indication that the 2004 amendment eliminated any such existing defense from the 2001 Act, we are inferring that the 2001 Act likely did not contain a provision allowing for such a defense.
| Though the 1992 Act allowed for an efficiency defense, the 2001 Act, as amended in 2004, did not. Since there is no indication that the 2004 amendment eliminated any such existing defense from the 2001 Act, this seems a strong indication that that the 2001 Act likely did not contain a provision allowing for such a defense.


|- class="categorydivision"
|- class="categorydivision"
Line 119: Line 119:
| Abusive Acts
| Abusive Acts
| 1
| 1
| The 1992 Act prohibited abusive acts, and there is no indication that it was eliminated in the 2001 act.  
| The 1992 Act prohibited abusive acts, and there is no indication that it was eliminated in the 2001 act. The Office for the Protection of Competition continued to fine companies for "abus[ing] their dominant position."<ref>OECD 2002 report at 6, found at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/9/2509462.pdf</ref>


Line 126: Line 126:
| Price Setting
| Price Setting
| 1
| 1
| The Act prohibits predatory pricing.  
| The Act prohibits predatory pricing.<ref>http://www.whitecase.com/publications/detail.aspx?publication=433</ref>


|-
|-
Line 139: Line 139:
| Resale Price Maintenance
| Resale Price Maintenance
| 1
| 1
| The 1992 Act prohibited RPM, and there is no indication that it was eliminated in the 2001 act.
| The Act prohibits resale price maintenance.<ref>OECD 2001 at 2; OECD 2002 at 2</ref>
Line 146: Line 146:
| Obstacles to Entry
| Obstacles to Entry
| 0
| 0
| Though the 1992 Act prohibited barriers to entry, the 2001 Act, as amended in 2004, did not. Therefore, since there is no indication that the 2004 amendment eliminated any such existing prohibition from the 2001 Act, we are inferring that the 2001 Act likely did not contain a provision prohibiting barriers to entry.  
| Though the 1992 Act prohibited barriers to entry, the 2001 Act, as amended in 2004, did not. Since there is no indication that the 2004 amendment eliminated any such existing prohibition from the 2001 Act, this seems a strong indication that the 2001 Act likely did not contain a provision prohibiting barriers to entry.  
|-
|-
Line 158: Line 158:
| Price Fixing
| Price Fixing
| 1
| 1
| The Act prohibits price fixing.
| The Act prohibits price fixing.<ref>OECD 2002 at 3</ref>
|-
|-
Line 182: Line 182:
| Market Sharing
| Market Sharing
| 1
| 1
| The Act adopts the prohibition on market sharing found in Article 81(1)(c) of the EC Treaty<ref>http://www.cerna.ensmp.fr/Enseignement/CoursEUCompetionLaw/1-Article81.pdf</ref>
| The Act adopts the prohibition on market sharing found in Article 81(1)(c) of the EC Treaty<ref>http://www.cerna.ensmp.fr/Enseignement/CoursEUCompetionLaw/1-Article81.pdf; OECD 2001 at 2</ref>
|-
|-

Latest revision as of 17:34, 20 June 2008

Score = 19

Governed by: Consolidated Act on the Protection of Competition Act No. 143 Coll. of 4 April 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”).[1][2]

Category Subcategory Score Comment
Scope Extraterritoriality 1 The Act applies to actions which occurred abroad if they had an effect in the Czech Republic.
Remedies Fines 1 The Act authorizes the issuance of fines.
Prison Sentences 0
Divestitures 1 The Competition Authority can divest an improper merger.[3]
Private Enforcement 3rd Party Initiation 0
Remedies Available to 3rd Parties 0
3rd Party Rights in Proceedings 0
Merger Notification Voluntary 0
Mandatory 3 Merger notification is mandatory, depending on turnover.[4]
Pre-merger 2 Merger must be approved by Office for the Protection of Competition prior to realization.[5]
Post-merger 0
Merger Assessment Dominance 1 Merger assessment includes looking at creation of dominant position.[6]
Restriction of Competition 1 Merger assessment includes looking at the merger's effect on competion in the market.[7]
Public Interest (Pro D) 1 When assessing the merger, the Authority considers whether it meets consumer needs and interests and considers research and development benefits. [8]
Public Interest (Pro Authority) 0
Other 0
Efficiency 0 Though the 1992 Act allowed for an efficiency defense, the 2001 Act, as amended in 2004, did not. Since there is no indication that the 2004 amendment eliminated any such existing defense from the 2001 Act, this seems a strong indication that that the 2001 Act likely did not contain a provision allowing for such a defense.
Dominance Limits Access 1 The Act prohibits "stopping or restricting production"
Abusive Acts 1 The 1992 Act prohibited abusive acts, and there is no indication that it was eliminated in the 2001 act. The Office for the Protection of Competition continued to fine companies for "abus[ing] their dominant position."[9]


Price Setting 1 The Act prohibits predatory pricing.[10]
Discriminatory Pricing 1 The Act prohibits price discrimination


Resale Price Maintenance 1 The Act prohibits resale price maintenance.[11]


Obstacles to Entry 0 Though the 1992 Act prohibited barriers to entry, the 2001 Act, as amended in 2004, did not. Since there is no indication that the 2004 amendment eliminated any such existing prohibition from the 2001 Act, this seems a strong indication that the 2001 Act likely did not contain a provision prohibiting barriers to entry.
Efficiency Defense 0
Restrictive Trade Practices Price Fixing 1 The Act prohibits price fixing.[12]
Tying 1 The Act prohibits "conditioning conclusion of agreements upon acceptance of performances which in accordance with fair business practices are in no connection with the subject matter of the agreement"
Market Division 1 The Act prohibits market division
Output Restraint 1 The Act prohibits "limitation or control of production"
Market Sharing 1 The Act adopts the prohibition on market sharing found in Article 81(1)(c) of the EC Treaty[13]
Eliminating Competitors 0
Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging 0
Supply Refusal 0
Efficiency Defense 1 The Act adopts Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty, which permits agreements that contribute to economic efficiency.[14]

References

  1. ↑ The Act adopted EC Treaty Article 81 and 82, so gaps left by the secondary source were filled in using the actual text of the EC Treaty (see http://www.ebrd.com/pubs/legal/lit041k.pdf at 4 and http://www.mutrap.org.vn/upload/books/downloadfiles/SERV-3%20Report%20Charles%20Marquand_eng.pdf. at 27)
  2. ↑ Full text of Act was unavailable, secondary sources include the 2001 OECD report, found at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/42/2488774.pdf and the 2001 and 2002 Annual Reports of the Office for the Protection of Competition, found at http://www.compet.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/VZ_EN/AR2001_EN.pdf and http://www.compet.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/VZ_EN/AR2002_EN.pdf
  3. ↑ OECD 2001 at 9
  4. ↑ 2001 Annual Report at 7
  5. ↑ 2001 Annual Report at 7; 2002 Annual Report at 14
  6. ↑ OECD 2001 at 8
  7. ↑ OECD 2001 at 8
  8. ↑ OECD 2001 at 9
  9. ↑ OECD 2002 report at 6, found at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/9/2509462.pdf
  10. ↑ http://www.whitecase.com/publications/detail.aspx?publication=433
  11. ↑ OECD 2001 at 2; OECD 2002 at 2
  12. ↑ OECD 2002 at 3
  13. ↑ http://www.cerna.ensmp.fr/Enseignement/CoursEUCompetionLaw/1-Article81.pdf; OECD 2001 at 2
  14. ↑ http://www.cerna.ensmp.fr/Enseignement/CoursEUCompetionLaw/1-Article81.pdf
Retrieved from "https://antitrustworldwiki.com/antitrustwiki/index.php?title=Czech_Republic_(April_4_2001)&oldid=2312"