Merger Remedies in a Small Market Economy: Empirical Evidence from the Baltic States

• Authors: Alexandr Svetlicinii , Külliki Lugenberg
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The paper represents a comparative study of the merger remedies practices of the three Baltic states: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Based on comprehensive merger control data (2004-2011) and a comparative assessment of merger remedies imposed by the NCAs in the selected economic sectors (telecoms, alcoholic beverages, construction materials, trade in pharmaceuticals) the study identifies trends and tendencies of merger control that are characteristic for small market economies. Despite harmonization of national competition laws and enforcement practices with the EU rules and standards, the study highlights an obvious divergence from the EU guidance expressed in increasing acceptance of behavioral commitments. The results of the assessment indicate the need to develop more specific guidance on behavioral remedies that would better reflect the merger control realities of small market economies.

Keywords

EN

EU competition law; merger control; merger remedies; national competition authority; Estonia; Latvia; Lithuania

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Baltic Journal of Law & Politics
• Year: 2013
• Volume: 6
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 1-26

Dates

published

2013-06-01

online

2013-09-05

Contributors

author

Alexandr Svetlicinii

• Senior Researcher Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn Law School (Estonia)

author

Külliki Lugenberg

• Adviser Estonian Competition Authority, Competition Division, Merger Control Department (Estonia)

References

• 1. Baarslag, Marieke, Gulbahar Tezel, and Saskia Weerheim. “The Dutch merger remedy experience.” E.C.L.R. 30(9) (2009): 447-469.
• 2. Black, Oliver. “Competition law in Central and Eastern Europe.” E.C.L.R. 14(3) (1993): 129-134.
• 3. Butans, Maris. “The Latvian Competition Council provisionally agrees to clear a merger if behavioral remedies are adopted (Sentor Farm Aptiekas / Recipe Plus).” e-Competitions 26666 (2009).
• 4. Calvino, Nadia. “When do Mergers Raise Concerns? An Analysis of the Assessment Carried out by the European Commission under the New Merger Regulation.” Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 2(6) (2011): 521-528.
• 5. Eichhorn, Kaarli. “The Estonian Competition Authority cleared a merger in the cider market with a commitment not to increase production above specified levels (A. Le Coq/Finelin).” e-Competitions 20956 (2003).
• 6. Eichhorn, Kaarli. “The Estonian Competition Authority clears a merger in phase II in the markets of wholesale broadband access and retail broadband access with divestiture remedies (Elion/MicroLink).” e-Competitions 20953 (2005).
• 7. Gal, Michal S. Competition Policy for Small Market Economies. Harvard University Press, 2003.
• 8. Gal, Michal S. “Merger Policy for Small and Micro Jurisdictions”: 61-124. In: More Pros and Cons of Merger Control. Konkurrensverket, 2012.
• 9. Gal, Michal S. “Size Does Matter: General Policy Prescriptions for Optimal Competition Rules in Small Economies.” Southern California Law Review 74 (2000-2001): 1437-1478.
• 10. Geradin, Damien, and David Henry. “Competition Law in the New Member States - Where Do We Come From? Where Do We Go?”: 273-309. In: Damien Geradin, ed. Modernisation and Enlargement: Two Major Challenges for ECCompetition Law. Intersentia, 2005.
• 11. Ginter, Carri and Mari Matjus. “Assessment of non-horizontal mergers in Estonia.” E.C.L.R. 31(12) (2010): 504-508.
• 12. Hoehn, Thomas and Suzanne Rab. “UK merger remedies: convergence or conflict with Europe? A comparative assessment of remedies in UK mergers.” E.C.L.R. 30(2) (2009): 74-94.
• 13. Hoehn, Thomas, Suzanne Rab, and Grant Saggers. “‘Breaking up is hard to do’: National merger remedies in the information and communication industries.” E.C.L.R. 30(5) (2009): 255-276.
• 14. Horn, Henrik, and Johan Stennek. “EU merger control and small member states interests”: 83-119. In: Pros and Cons of Merger Control. Konkurrensverket, 2002.
• 15. Kalaus, Martti. “Estonia: the new Competition Act introduces full merger control.” E.C.L.R. 23(6) (2002): 304-310.
• 16. Kalaus, Tanel. “The Estonian Competition Authority issues its first merger prohibition taking into account both previous acquisitions and potential future acquisitions in the pharmacy services sector (Terve Pere Apteek/Saku Apteek).” e-Competitions 19964 (2008).
• 17. Këllezi, Pranvera, and Christophe Rapin. “Merger remedies and competition law: An overview of EU and national case law.” e-Competitions 43382 (2012).
• 18. Little, Cormac. “Remedies under Irish merger control rules.” E.C.L.R. 30(12) (2009): 600-603.
• 19. Makauskaite, Agne. “The Lithuanian Competition Council cleared an acquisition in the market of distribution of strong alcoholic beverages with remedies, including divestiture and application of non-discriminatory pricing (Mineraliniai vandenys/Stumbras).” e-Competitions 21032 (2003).
• 20. Makauskaite, Agne. “The Lithuanian Competition Council cleared an acquisition in the strong alcoholic beverages related market with divestiture remedy (Alita/Anykščių vynas).” e-Competitions 21036 (2004).
• 21. Makauskaite, Agne. “The Lithuanian Competition Council cleared a merger in the markets of concrete with remedies, including commitment of nondiscriminatory pricing and various contractual provisions (Betoneta/Markučiai).” e-Competitions 21031 (2003).
• 22. Makauskaite, Agne. “The Lithuanian Competition Council cleared in phase II a merger in the breweries market with remedies, including divestiture and certain business behavioural commitments (Carlsberg/Kalnapilis at al.).” e-Competitions 21019 (2000).
• 23. Makauskaite, Agne. “The Lithuanian Competition Council clears a merger in the fixed, mobile and other related telecommunications markets with a commitment to notify any further structural changes (Telia/Sonera)”, e-Competitions 21023 (2002).
• 24. Makauskaite, Agne. “The Lithuanian Competition Council clears a concentration in the wholesale and retail markets for broadband services with structural and behavioural remedies (Elion/MicroLink).” e-Competitions 21037 (2005).
• 25. Makauskaite, Agne “The Lithuanian Competition Council clears in phase II a merger in the markets of fixed and mobile communications with structural and behavioural remedies (TeliaSonera/Omnitel).” e-Competitions 21033 (2003).
• 26. Malinauskaite, Jurgita. “Development of merger control in the Baltic countries: over 10 years of experience: Part 1.” E.C.L.R. 32(3) (2011): 77-85.
• 27. Malinauskaite, Jurgita. “Development of merger control in the Baltic countries: over 10 years of experience: Part 2.” E.C.L.R. 32(3) (2011): 109-115.
• 28. Malinauskaite, Jurgita. “Efficiency tests in the merger control regimes of the Baltic countries: myth or reality.” I.C.C.L.R. 18(4) (2007): 136-146.
• 29. Paas, Katri. “Implications of the Smallness of an Economy for Merger Remedies.” Juridica International XV (2008): 94-103.
• 30. Paas-Mohando, Katri. “Do Small Economies Need Specific Rules for Substantive Aspects of Merger Control?” E.C.L.R. 34(5) (2013): 260-266.
• 31. Silava-Tomsone, Dace, and Ugis Zeltins. “The Latvian NCA clears a merger in the telecommunications sector with remedies including granting of access to infrastructure (Telia Sonera).” e-Competitions 20973 (2002).
• 32. Silava-Tomsone, Dace, and Ugis Zeltins. “The Latvian NCA cleared a merger in the alcoholic beverages distribution sector subject to remedies including granting of access to production and information (AV&D).” e-Competitions 20992 (2007).
• 33. Silava-Tomsone, Dace, and Ugis Zeltins. “The Latvian Competition Authority clears a merger in the roadworks sector subject to behavioural remedies relating to procurement and non-discrimination obligations (A.C.B. / 8 CBR).” e-Competitions 19966 (2008).
• 34. Silava-Tomsone, Dace, and Ugis Zeltins. “The Latvian Competition Council clears a merger in the markets for data transmission services and Internet access services subject to divestiture remedies (Lattelecom/Microlink Latvia).” e-Competitions 20979 (2005).
• 35. Svetlicinii, Alexandr, and Külliki Lugenberg. “Merger remedies in a small market economy: the Estonian experience.” E.C.L.R. 33(10) (2012): 475-481.
• 36. Thielert, Julia, and Maarten Pieter Schinkel. “Estonia’s competition policy: a critical evaluation towards EU accession.” E.C.L.R. 24(4) (2003): 165-175.
• 37. Veidemane Bērziņa, Zane. “The Latvian Competition Council approves acquisition by a holding company of a number of importers and distributors of alcoholic beverages after imposing conditions (SPV Distributor / MONO).” e-Competitions 32061 (2009).
• 38. Virtanen, Dalia. “The new Competition Act in Lithuania.” E.C.L.R. 21(1) (2000): 30-36.
• 1. Alita/Anykščių vynas. LTCA, 27.05.2004. No. 1S-80.
• 2. AS A.C.B./AS 8 CBR. LVCA, 02.06.2008. No. 3217/08/10/2.
• 3. AS A. Le Coq/OÜ Finelin. EECA, 11.11.2003. No. 38-KO.
• 4. Betoneta/Markučiai. LTCA, 25.09.2003. No. 1S-101.
• 5. Carlsberg/Kalnapilis, et al. LTCA, 09.11.2000. No. 123.
• 6. Commission Notice on remedies acceptable under the Council Regulation (EC)No 139/2004 and under Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004. Official Journal, 2008, no. C 267.
• 7. Competition Act of the Republic of Estonia. Official Gazette, 2001, no. 56, 332.
• 8. Competition Commission, CC8 - Merger Remedies: Competition CommissionGuidelines (November 2008) // http://www.competitioncommission. org.uk/assets/competitioncommission/docs/pdf/noninquiry/ rep_pub/rules_and_guide/pdf/cc8.pdf (accessed February 2, 2013).
• 9. Elion Ettevõtted AS/MicroLink AS. EECA, 21.10.2005. No. 47-KO.
• 10. Elion/MicroLink. LTCA, 27.10.2005. No. 1S-122.
• 11. Gintarinė vaistinė/Saulėgrąžų vaistinė and Thymus vaistinė. LTCA, 07.10.2011. No. 1S-208.
• 12. HeidelbergCement Northern Europe AB/Part of NCC Roads Holding AB. EECA, 07.08.2003. No. 26-KO.
• 13. Hoffmann-La-Roche & Co. AG v Commission. CJEU, 1979. No. 85/76.
• 14. ICN Merger Working Group: Analytical Framework Subgroup, MergerRemedies Review Project. Report for the fourth ICN annual conference (June 2005) // http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc323.pdf (accessed February 2, 2013).
• 15. Lattelecom SIA/Microlink Latvia SIA. LVCA, 30.09.2005. No. 497/05/10/3.
• 16. Mineraliniai vandenys/Stumbras. LTCA, 02.10.2003. No. 1S-107.
• 17. MM Holding B.V./OÜ Patrika. EECA, 02.11.2007. No. 44-KO.
• 18. OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, Competition Committee. Cross-Border Merger Control: Challenges for Developing and EmergingEconomies, Contribution from Lithuania. Document DAF/COMP/GF/WD(2010)74 (December 2010) // http://kt.gov.lt/naujienos/docs_oecd/global_forum_2011_1.pdf (accessed February 2, 2013).
• 19. OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, Competition Committee. Merger Remedies. Document DAF/COMP/WP3(2011)2 (October 2011).
• 20. OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, Competition Committee. Merger Remedies. Document DAF/COMP(2004)21 (December 2004) // http://www.oecd.org/competition/mergers/34305995.pdf (accessed February 2, 2013).
• 21. Regulation No. 139/2004 On the Control of Concentrations BetweenUndertakings. Official Journal, 2004, L24/1.
• 22. Sentor Farm aptiekas/Recipe Plus. LVCA, 23.01.2009. No. 2754/08/06/21.
• 23. S.P.I. Worldwide Trade Limited/AV&D SIA/Interlat SIA. LVCA, 08.10.2007. No. 1300/07/06/18.
• 24. SPV Distributor v. S.D.V./L.D.V./MONO M/S.Alko. LVCA, 19.06.2009. No. 651/09/06/4.
• 25. Telia AB/Sonera Corporation. EECA, 25.09.2002. No. 58-KO.
• 26. Telia/Sonera. EU Commission, 2002. No. COMP/M2803.
• 27. Telia/Sonera. LTCA, 18.07.2002. No. 82.
• 28. TeliaSonera/Omnitel. LTCA, 11.12.2003. No. 1S-140.
• 29. Telia/Sonera/Swedgiro AB. LVCA, 13.08.2002. No. 124.
• 30. Terve Pere Apteek OÜ/OÜ Saku Apteek. EECA, 08.05.2008. No. 3.1-8/08-020KO.
• 31. United Brands Company and United Brands Continentaal BV v Commission. CJEU, 1978. No. 27/76.
• 32. US Department of Justice, Antitrust Division. Policy Guide to Merger Remedies (June 2011) // http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/272350.pdf (accessed February 2, 2013).

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/bjlp-2013-0001