|
|
| (58 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == Norway 1993 - Dominance and price setting == | | == Saudia Arabia 2004 - Tying or discriminatory pricing == |
|
| |
|
| ''Counts?'' | | ''What do we think about this one?'' |
|
| |
|
| Section 3-1
| | imposing certain conditions on selling and purchasing transactions or on dealing with another firm, in a manner that puts it in a weak competitive position compared to other competing firms. |
| Prohibition of collaboration and influence on prices, markups and discounts
| |
| Two or more undertakings must not, in connection with the sale of goods or services by agreement or concerted practices, or by any other conduct liable to influence competition, fix or seek to influence prices, markups or discounts except for normal cash discounts. By "normal cash discounts" is meant discounts in connection with cash payment or payment within 30 days. A rate of over 3 per cent shall in no case be regarded as a normal cash discount.
| |
|
| |
|
| Likewise, '''one or more suppliers must not fix or seek to influence prices''', discounts or markups for the recipients' sale of goods or services.
| | --[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 15:18, 31 July 2007 (EDT) |
|
| |
|
| Agreed, "one or more" implies the price setting prohibition also applies to a single dominant firm. --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 18:21, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| == Norway 1993 - Divestiture as a remedy ==
| |
|
| |
|
| ''Does this count?? A secondary source supports the fact that the Norwegians divest in practice: http://www.konkurransetilsynet.no/portal/page?_pageid=235,471114&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_d_i=-121&p_d_c=&p_d_v=416231&p_d_i=-7127&p_d_c=&p_d_v=416231&p_d_i=-12732&p_d_c=&p_d_v=416231&p_d_i=-12733&p_d_c=&p_d_v=416231''
| | == Saudi Arabia 2004 - Eliminating Competitors == |
|
| |
|
| Section 6-5
| | ''Count it?'' |
| Relinquishment of gain
| |
| '''Where a gain has been achieved by infringement of this Act or decisions pursuant to this Act, the undertaking which has made such a gain may be required wholly or partly to relinquish it.''' This shall also apply when the undertaking which makes the gain is different from the offender. Where it is impossible to establish the size of the gain, the amount shall be determined approximately. | |
|
| |
|
| Where the undertaking is a company that is part of a group of companies, the company's parent company and the parent company of the group of companies to which the company belongs shall bear a secondary liability for the amount.
| | Article 4(4) - Preventing any firm from exercising its right to enter or move out of the market at any time or hampering the same. |
|
| |
|
| '''The Competition Authority may issue a writ giving an option of relinquishment of gain in accordance with this Section.''' The decision to issue such a writ shall not be regarded as an individual decision pursuant to the Public Administration Act. The writ shall have a time limit for acceptance of up to two months. Acceptance of the option is a basis for attachment. If the option is not accepted the Competition Authority may, within three months of the expiry of the time limit for acceptance, bring action against the undertaking in the judicial district where the undertaking may be sued. The case shall be dealt with in accordance with the Act relating to Judicial Procedure in Civil Cases. Mediation in the conciliation board is not necessary.
| | --[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 15:30, 31 July 2007 (EDT) |
| | |
| Agreed. --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 18:21, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| == Norway 1993 - Conditions for mergers ==
| |
| | |
| ''Sorry, but what do we do with this kind of language again?''
| |
| | |
| Section 3-11
| |
| Intervention against acquisition of enterprises
| |
| The Competition Authority may intervene against acquisition of enterprises where the Authority finds that the acquisition in question will create, or strengthen, a significant restriction of competition contrary to the purpose of Section 1-1.
| |
| | |
| By acquisition is also meant mergers, acquisition of stocks or shares and partial acquisition of enterprises.
| |
| | |
| Decisions concerning intervention may involve imposing a prohibition or order, '''as well as granting conditional permission'''. Among other things the Competition Authority may ...
| |
| | |
| Look further into the statute and see what happens if the firms merge without satisfying the imposed conditions. If, in that situation, the commission may unwind the merger (or force the conditions to take place), then count that as divestiture (include a comment the divestiture is only for the merger context). However, if commission doesn't do anything or only fines the firms for not complying, then do not count that as divestiture. --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 18:21, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
| | |
| | |
| Hylton: Is there any language saying that the competition authority can divest in the event that the firm becomes dominant?
| |
| | |
| | |
| ''This language seems to be the smoking gun we've been looking for:''
| |
| | |
| The Competition Authority may intervene against acquisition of enterprises within six months after such an agreement on acquisition has been concluded. Where special grounds so indicate, the Authority may intervene within one year of the same date.
| |
| | |
| --[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 15:08, 16 July 2007 (EDT) | |
| | |
| == Norway 2004 - Efficiency defense ==
| |
| | |
| ''Thoughts?''
| |
| | |
| '''Section 13 Examination of cases involving questions of principle or interests of major significance to society'''
| |
| In '''cases involving questions of principle or interests of major significance to society''', the King in Council may approve conduct that contravenes the prohibition set forth in Section 10 or Section 11, issue orders under Section 12, and reverse decisions of the Competition Authority made under Section 12. Approval of conduct that contravenes Section 10 or Section 11 shall have no effect on infringements of the Act or decisions made pursuant to the Act prior to the issuance of such approval.
| |
| | |
| That looks like an efficiency defense to me. --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 18:21, 15 July 2007 (EDT)
| |
Saudia Arabia 2004 - Tying or discriminatory pricing
What do we think about this one?
imposing certain conditions on selling and purchasing transactions or on dealing with another firm, in a manner that puts it in a weak competitive position compared to other competing firms.
--JWSchneider 15:18, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
Saudi Arabia 2004 - Eliminating Competitors
Count it?
Article 4(4) - Preventing any firm from exercising its right to enter or move out of the market at any time or hampering the same.
--JWSchneider 15:30, 31 July 2007 (EDT)