Search results

1

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

100%

Svetlicinii A., Lugenberg K.

Baltic Journal of Law & Politics

|

2013

|

vol. 6

|

issue 1

1-26

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.

2

State-Controlled Entities in the EU Merger Control: the Case of PKN Orlen and Lotos Group

100%

Svetlicinii A.

Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies

|

2020

|

vol. 13

|

issue 22

189-210

FR

Le ralentissement économique provoqué par la pandémie de coronavirus est suppose se traduire par une participation accrue de l’État au fonctionnement des marchés. L’une des formes de cette participation est la recapitalisation et la participation de l’État dans les entreprises commerciales, ce qui pourrait produire des effets anticoncurrentiels au détriment des concurrents et des consommateurs. À cet égard, l’application effective des règles de contrôle des concentrations au niveau de l’UE et national gagne en importance. Le présent article s’interroge sur l’adéquation des normes de contrôle des concentrations et des moyens d’évaluation disponibles pour tenir en compte les effets anticoncurrentiels potentiels découlant des formes de contrôle public sur les entreprises. L’analyse se concentre sur les expériences des entreprises publiques polonaises dans le cadre de l’évaluation du contrôle des concentrations au niveau de l’UE et national. Cette analyse est le résultat de la notification de la fusion PKN Orlen/Lotos qui a reçu l’autorisation conditionnelle de la Commission européenne.

EN

The economic downturn caused by the coronavirus pandemics is expected to result in the increased participation of the state in the functioning of markets. One of the forms of this participation is the recapitalization and state shareholding in commercial enterprises, which could lead to anti-competitive effects to the detriment of competitors and consumers. In this regard, the effective enforcement of merger control rules at the EU and national levels gains in importance. The present paper questions the adequacy of the available merger control standards and assessment tools for taking into account potential anti-competitive effects stemming from ownership and non-ownership forms of state control over undertakings. The analysis is focused on the experiences of Polish state owned enterprises under the EU and national merger control assessment. It was prompted by the notification of the PKN Orlen/Lotos merger that received conditional clearance from the EU Commission.

3

Does the ‘more appropriate’ authority need to be independent? Rule of law implications for case referrals with respect of concentrations

84%

Malaga M.

Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies

|

2022

|

vol. 15

|

issue 25

FR

Dans le récent arrêt Sped-Pro, le Tribunal a jugé qu’afin de garantir une protection juridictionnelle efficace du plaignant, la Commission est tenue d’examiner l’indépendance de l’autorité nationale de la concurrence concernée, ainsi que les préoccupations générales en matière d’État de droit, lorsqu’elle rejette des plaintes au titre de l’article 102 du TFUE et conclut qu’une telle autorité est «mieux placée» pour connaître de l’affaire. Cette contribution vise à discuter si une telle obligation s’applique aux renvois d’affaires de la Commission aux États membres en matière de concentrations. D’une part, il s’agit des mêmes autorités nationales de concurrence et les mêmes standards devraient s’appliquer. D’autre part, le système de renvoi des affaires diffère des caractéristiques du cadre des articles 101 et 102 du TFUE. Ainsi, cet article discute de l’arrêt du Tribunal dans l’affaire Sped-Pro, du cadre juridique et de la pratique concernant les renvois en matière de concentrations et, enfin, des conséquences de l’arrêt pour l’approche future de la Commission dans la matière discutée.

EN

In the recent Sped-Pro judgment, the General Court ruled that in order to guarantee effective judicial protection of the complainant, the Commission is obliged to examine the given national competition authority’s independence, and overall rule of law concerns, when it rejects complaints regarding Article 102 TFEU and concludes that such an authority is ‘best placed’ to hear the case. This contribution aims to discuss whether such obligation applies to case referrals from the Commission to Member States with respect of concentrations. On one hand, these are the same national competition authorities and the same standards should apply. On the other – the case referral system differs from the characteristics of the Articles 101–102 TFEU framework. Thus, this paper contains a discussion on the General Court’s judgment in Sped-Pro, the legal framework and practice regarding merger referrals, and, finally, the consequences of the judgment for the future approach of the Commission in the discussed matter.

Refine search results

2 Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies

1 Baltic Journal of Law & Politics

2 Svetlicinii A.

1 Lugenberg K.

1 Malaga M.

1 2022

1 2020

1 2013

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

State-Controlled Entities in the EU Merger Control: the Case of PKN Orlen and Lotos Group

Does the ‘more appropriate’ authority need to be independent? Rule of law implications for case referrals with respect of concentrations