|
|
| Line 29: |
Line 29: |
|
| |
|
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 13:56, 22 June 2007 (EDT) | | --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 13:56, 22 June 2007 (EDT) |
|
| |
| == Argentina 1999 Divestures ==
| |
|
| |
| This is translated from Spanish, but it sounds to me like it allows for divestures.
| |
|
| |
| Article 46(c) "Without damage of other sanctions that will be able to correspond, when acts are verified that constitute abuse of dominant position or when it is stated that it has acquired itself or consolidated a monopolistic or oligopolical position in violation of the dispositions of this law, the '''Court will be able to impose the fulfillment of conditions that aim to neutralize the distorsivos aspects on the competition or to ask for the competent judge who the infractoras companies are dissolved, eliminated, dispersed or divided''';"
| |
|
| |
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 17:16, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Absolutely. "Dissolved," "dispersed," and "divided" all sound like divestitures to me.
| |
|
| |
| --[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 17:47, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Argentina 1999 3rd Party Initiation ==
| |
|
| |
| Again, translated from Spanish. This seems to allow 3rd Party Initiation:
| |
|
| |
| Article 26 -"The procedure will begin of office or by denunciation made '''by any physical or legal, public or deprived person'''."
| |
|
| |
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 17:27, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| "Deprived" person? Google may have translated this wrong. Maybe the term for "private" also means deprived? Based on this, it certainly looks like it's leaning towards private initiation.
| |
|
| |
| --[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 17:49, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| I should have clarified this. Based on the rest of the text, I think "deprived person" means "injured party."
| |
|
| |
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 09:16, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Argentina 1999 Remedies Available to 3rd Parties ==
| |
|
| |
| Sounds like it allows damages for 3rd parties:
| |
|
| |
| Article 51, "The physical '''people or legal victims by the acts prohibited by this law, will be able to exert the action for damages''' of damages and damages as the norms of the common right, before the competent judge in that matter."
| |
|
| |
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 17:39, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Agreed.
| |
|
| |
| --[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 17:49, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
| == Argentina 1999 3rd Party Rights ==
| |
|
| |
| Seems like they're saying that people who are affected by the anti-competitive firm have a right to evidence (the investigated facts):
| |
|
| |
| Article 42, "The Court will be able to give intervention like helping part in the procedures that are abridged before he himself, the '''affected ones of the investigated facts''', to the associations of consumers and associations legally recognized industralists, to the provinces and '''all other person who can have a legitimate interest in the investigated facts.'''"
| |
|
| |
| --[[User:AchalOza|AchalOza]] 17:43, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Agreed.
| |
|
| |
| --[[User:JWSchneider|JWSchneider]] 17:50, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
| |
Albania 2003 Public Interest Pro-D
Does this sound like a public interest (or efficiency) defense to you?
2. Commission may not prohibit concentrations where one of the undertakings risks
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
exit the market in the near future;
b) there is no serious prospects of reorganizing the activity of this undertaking.
--AchalOza 12:57, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
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.
Not public interest, either. Maybe it belongs under "Other."
--JWSchneider 17:42, 21 June 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."
--AchalOza 13:17, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
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?
--AchalOza 13:56, 22 June 2007 (EDT)