Latvia (Jan 1, 1998)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Score = 10
Governed by: Competition Law of June 18, 1997, came into force January 1 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “Competition Act”) [1]
| Category | Subcategory | Score | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope | Extraterritoriality | 0 | |
| Remedies | Fines | 1 | The Competition Council can impose fines on firms that violate the Act. [2] |
| Prison Sentences | 0 | ||
| Divestitures | 0 | ||
| Private Enforcement | 3rd Party Initiation | 1 | The Competition Council has initiated investigations based on third party complaints. [3] |
| Remedies Available to 3rd Parties | 0 | ||
| 3rd Party Rights in Proceedings | 0 | ||
| Merger Notification | Voluntary | 1 | Article 19 of the Act contains a merger notification requirement, though it is unclear whether it is voluntary or mandatory. [4] |
| Mandatory | 0 | ||
| Pre-merger | 0 | ||
| Post-merger | 1 | Article 19 of the Act requires merger notification after the merger has taken effect.[5] | |
| Merger Assessment | Dominance | 1 | In assessing a merger, the Competition Council considers the resulting "market power" of the merging intentities. [6] |
| Restriction of Competition | 1 | In assessing the validity of a merger, the Competition Council considers it in "regard to the development
and preservation of competition." [7] | |
| Public Interest (Pro D) | 1 | The Competition Council will consider the effect of an agreement on its ability to increase exports and its effect on "customers’ welfare."[8] | |
| Public Interest (Pro Authority) | 0 | ||
| Other | 0 | ||
| Efficiency | 1 | In assessing a merger, the Competition Council considers "possible benefits or losses for consumers and society"[9] | |
| Dominance | Limits Access | 0 | |
| Abusive Acts | 1 | The Act prohibits abuse of a dominant position. [10] | |
| Price Setting | 0 | ||
| Discriminatory Pricing | 0 | ||
| Resale Price Maintenance | 0 | ||
| Obstacles to Entry | 1 | In evaluating draft legislation, the Competition Council looked down on dominant firms that create barriers to market entry. [11]. Furthermore, in Article 1.2, in defining a dominant position, the Act consider whether a firm can "significantly prevent, restrict or distort competition." [12] | |
| Efficiency Defense | 0 | ||
| Restrictive Trade Practices | Price Fixing | 0 | |
| Tying | 0 | ||
| Market Division | 0 | ||
| Output Restraint | 1 | The Act forbids an agreement that limits flow of services to the market[13] | |
| Market Sharing | 1 | In evaluating draft legislation, the Competition Council looked negatively upon market sharing. [14] | |
| Eliminating Competitors | 1 | Article 15 of The Act prohibits agreements that restrict competition.[15] | |
| Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging | 0 | ||
| Supply Refusal | 0 | ||
| Efficiency Defense | 0 |
References
- ↑ The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia states on its website (http://www.latviaspb.ru/en/eu/history/4358/4359/4365/) that the 1997 Act reflects the substance of Article 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. However, text of the actual statute could not be found. Therefore, substance of the law was coded based on an OECD report, and may under-state the scope of the law: OECD Global Forum on Competition, Sept 21 2001, available at http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2001doc.nsf/ENGDIRCORPLOOK/NT00004E56/$FILE/JT00113087.PDF (hereinafter referred to as "OECD")
- ↑ OECD at 9
- ↑ OECD at 4
- ↑ OECD at 2, 9
- ↑ OECD at 9
- ↑ OECD at 10, 12
- ↑ OECD at 10
- ↑ OECD at 10
- ↑ OECD at 10
- ↑ OECD at 2
- ↑ OECD at 4
- ↑ OECD at 5
- ↑ OECD at 15
- ↑ OECD at 3
- ↑ OECD at 2, 6, 8