United Kingdom 1998: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
JWSchneider (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Score = | '''Score = 21''' | ||
''Governed by:'' The Competition Act of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”)<ref>''Competition Law in the EU'', at 655-747; http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/europe/UnitedKingdom/The%20Competition%20Act%201998.PDF</ref> | ''Governed by:'' The Competition Act of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”)<ref>''Competition Law in the EU'', at 655-747; http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/europe/UnitedKingdom/The%20Competition%20Act%201998.PDF; http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=Competition+Act&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&TYPE=QS&NavFrom=0&activeTextDocId=1455848&PageNumber=1&SortAlpha=0</ref> and The Fair Trading Act of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “FTA”).<ref>''Competition Law in the EU'', at 751-831; http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=Fair+Trading+Act&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&TYPE=QS&NavFrom=0&activeTextDocId=1774511&PageNumber=1&SortAlpha=0</ref> | ||
{| class="wikitable" | {| class="wikitable" | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| | | | ||
| Prison Sentences | | Prison Sentences | ||
| | | 0 | ||
| | | | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
| Restriction of Competition | | Restriction of Competition | ||
| 1 | | 1 | ||
| § 84 of the | | § 84 of the FTA lists the effect on effective competition as a factor in evaluating public interest. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
| Other | | Other | ||
| 1 | | 1 | ||
| §84 of the | | §84 of the FTA lists the effect of the merger on activity outside of the UK as well as the overall effect of the merger on the distribution of industry and employment in the UK as factors to consider in merger assessment. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
| Efficiency | | Efficiency | ||
| 1 | | 1 | ||
| § 84 of the | | § 84 of the FTA lists cost reduction among the factors to be considered. | ||
|- class="categorydivision" | |- class="categorydivision" | ||
Latest revision as of 06:52, 8 January 2009
Score = 21
Governed by: The Competition Act of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”)[1] and The Fair Trading Act of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “FTA”).[2]
| Category | Subcategory | Score | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope | Extraterritoriality | 1 | § 2(1) applies the Competition Act to agreements or decisions that affect trade within the UK. |
| Remedies | Fines | 1 | §36 of the Competition Act requires fines in certain cases. |
| Prison Sentences | 0 | ||
| Divestitures | 0 | ||
| Private Enforcement | 3rd Party Initiation | 1 | The ability of 3rd parties to file a civil suit is not explicitly provided for in the Act but many explanatory memos and statements by Parliament have said this was their intention.[3] |
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties | 1 | See above. | |
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings | 1 | §47 of the Competition Act says that 3rd parties have the right to appeal decisions of the Commission. | |
| Merger Notification | Voluntary | 1 | |
| Mandatory | 0 | ||
| Pre-merger | 0 | ||
| Post-merger | 1 | ||
| Merger Assessment | Dominance | 0 | |
| Restriction of Competition | 1 | § 84 of the FTA lists the effect on effective competition as a factor in evaluating public interest. | |
| Public Interest (Pro D) | 0 | ||
| Public Interest (Pro Authority) | 1 | §72(2) of the FTA and § 84 of the Competition Act says that when deciding whether a merger qualifies for investigation the Commission must report on adverse effects to the public interest. | |
| Other | 1 | §84 of the FTA lists the effect of the merger on activity outside of the UK as well as the overall effect of the merger on the distribution of industry and employment in the UK as factors to consider in merger assessment. | |
| Efficiency | 1 | § 84 of the FTA lists cost reduction among the factors to be considered. | |
| Dominance | Limits Access | 1 | §18(2)(b) of the Competition Act lists limiting production as a violation of Chapter II. |
| Abusive Acts | 1 | §18(2) of the Competition Act provides various examples of abusive acts that may be cause for investigation. | |
| Price Setting | 1 | §18(2)(a) of the Competition Act lists imposing unfair prices as an infringement of Chapter II. | |
| Discriminatory Pricing | 1 | §18(2)(c) lists applying dissimilar conditions or prices to equivalent transactions as impermissible. Although the OFT does not always treat this as an offense in itself. | |
| Resale Price Maintenance | 1 | RPM is not explicitly illegal in the Competition Act but the §2.20 of the DGFT’s Guidelines show this to be impermissible.[4] | |
| Obstacles to Entry | 1 | The DGFT Guidelines on Chapter II violations places considerable emphasis on barriers to entry caused by companies in a dominant position.[5] | |
| Efficiency Defense | 1 | §19 of the Competition Act gives an option to the Secretary of State to exclude a company from investigation of abuses and in practice this has always been for reasons of public interest and economic efficiency. | |
| Restrictive Trade Practices | Price Fixing | 1 | §2(a) of the Competition Act bans price fixing. |
| Tying | 1 | §2(e) of the Competition Act makes tying illegal. | |
| Market Division | 1 | §2(b) of the Competition Act prohibits controlling markets. | |
| Output Restraint | 1 | §2(b) of the Competition Act prohibits limiting production. | |
| Market Sharing | 1 | §2(c) of the Competition Act bans market sharing. | |
| Eliminating Competitors | 0 | ||
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging | 1 | The DGFT Guidelines list collusive tendering as an example of an infringement on the Chapter I prohibition.[6] | |
| Supply Refusal | 1 | The DGFT Guidelines lists agreements to boycott certain customers as an example of a Chapter I violation.[7] | |
| Efficiency Defense | 1 | §19 of the Competition Act gives an option to the Secretary of State to exclude a company from investigation of abuses and in practice this has always been for reasons of public interest and economic efficiency. |
References
- ↑ Competition Law in the EU, at 655-747; http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/europe/UnitedKingdom/The%20Competition%20Act%201998.PDF; http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=Competition+Act&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&TYPE=QS&NavFrom=0&activeTextDocId=1455848&PageNumber=1&SortAlpha=0
- ↑ Competition Law in the EU, at 751-831; http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=Fair+Trading+Act&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&TYPE=QS&NavFrom=0&activeTextDocId=1774511&PageNumber=1&SortAlpha=0
- ↑ Competition Law in the EU, at 74 and see Articles 81-82 of the Competition Act saying that the decisions of the Commission are to be in accord with “the civil liability of an undertaking for harm caused by its infringement of Community Law”.
- ↑ See Director General of Fair Trading, Guideline: The Chapter I Prohibition, OFT 401, §2.20 (Mar. 1999).
- ↑ See Director General of Fair Trading, Guideline: The Chapter II Prohibition, OFT 402, 3.15 (Mar. 1999).
- ↑ DGFT Guidelines, supra note 4 at 3.5-3.28.
- ↑ Id.