Part VIII Cooperation in Antirust Enforcement, 22 International Cooperation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Smijter Eddy De ◽  
Gasparon Philipp ◽  
Berghe Pascal
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
International Cooperation ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Merger Control ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
International Dimension ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Exchange Of Information ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Eu

This chapter studies the cooperation between the European Commission and competition authorities and courts outside the EU, at both bilateral and multilateral level, and highlights the importance of that cooperation in the context of proliferation of competition regimes and the continual increase in cross-border business activities. In more than half of its enforcement activities, the Commission cooperates with one or more foreign jurisdictions, obviously with varying degrees of intensity. The bulk of this international cooperation, in the fields of both merger control and anticompetitive practices, is with the U.S. and the Canadian competition authorities. The chapter then sets out the legal framework for international cooperation and explains the principles determining the Commission’s jurisdiction in cases having an international dimension. It also considers cooperation in antitrust enforcement, with particular attention given to the exchange of information and disclosure of evidence.

scholarly journals Corporate Mobility – The Involvement of Employees

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 74-105
Author(s):  
Joti Roest
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Employee Participation ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Negotiation Process ◽  
Employee Representation ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Political Compromise ◽  
Board Level ◽  
Corporate Mobility ◽  
The Eu

In April 2018, the European Commission presented a proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2017/1132 as regards cross-border conversions, mergers and divisions. This article discusses the proposed provisions to protect the interests of employees in a cross-border operation. Their position would be strengthened since employee representatives are granted information and consultation rights. As to the protection of existing board level employee representation rights, the Proposal follows the EU legal framework on the involvement of employees, consisting of a negotiation process between representatives of the employees and the management. As Standard Rules apply if no agreement can be reached, negotiations take place with the law as a sentinel. Practice has shown that this complicated legal framework is effective in protecting existing employee participation rights. The Proposal shows that in 2019, this carefully vetted political compromise leaves EU legislators little room to manoeuvre by simplifying the framework or strengthening the position of employees.

Thematic Priorities For Sustainable Development of Ukraine-Romania Cross-Border Cooperation (The Case Study of Chernivtsi Region)

2020 ◽  
pp. 205-219
Author(s):  
Valentyna Bohatyrets ◽  
Liubov Melnychuk ◽  
Yaroslav Zoriy
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Cultural Development ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Strategic Orientations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Further Development ◽  
Cross Border Cooperation ◽  
The Eu

This paper seeks to investigate sustainable cross-border cooperation (CBC) as a distinctive model of interstate collaboration, embedded in the neighboring borderland regions of two or more countries. The focus of the research revolves around the establishment and further development of geostrategic, economic, cultural and scientific capacity of the Ukrainian-Romanian partnership as a fundamental construct in ensuring and strengthening the stability, security and cooperation in Europe. This research highlights Ukraine’s aspirations to establish, develop and diversify bilateral good-neighborly relations with Romania both regionally and internationally. The main objective is to elucidate Ukraine-Romania cross-border cooperation initiatives, inasmuch Ukraine-Romania CBC has been stirring up considerable interest in terms of its inexhaustible historical, cultural and spiritual ties. Furthermore, the similarity of the neighboring states’ strategic orientations grounds the basis for development and enhancement of Ukraine-Romania cooperation. The authors used desk research and quantitative research to conclude that Ukraine-Romania CBC has the impact not only on the EU and on Ukraine multi-vector foreign policy, but it also has the longer-term global consequences. In the light of the current reality, the idea of introducing and reinforcing the importance of Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC) sounds quite topical and relevant. This research considers a number of explanations for Ukraine-Romania Cross-Border Cooperation as a key element of the EU policy towards its neighbors. Besides, the subject of the research is considered from different perspectives in order to show the diversity and complexity of the Ukraine-Romania relations in view of the fact that sharing common borders we are presumed to find common solutions. As the research has demonstrated, the Ukraine-Romania cross border cooperation is a pivotal factor of boosting geostrategic, economic, political and cultural development for each participant country, largely depending on the neighboring countries’ cohesion and convergence. Significantly, there is an even stronger emphasis on the fact that while sharing the same borders, the countries share common interests and aspirations for economic thriving, cultural exchange, diplomatic ties and security, guaranteed by a legal framework. The findings of this study have a number of important implications for further development and enhancement of Ukraine-Romania cooperation. Accordingly, the research shows how imperative are the benefits of Romania as a strategic partner for outlining top priorities of Ukraine’s foreign policy.

Cross-border Distribution of Collective Investment Products in the EU

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Gargantini ◽  
Carmine Di Noia ◽  
Georgios Dimitropoulos
Keyword(s):  
Home Country ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Business Rules ◽  
Investment Funds ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Section 8 ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Product Regulation ◽  
Supervisory Practices ◽  
The Eu

This chapter analyzes the current regulatory framework for cross-border distribution of investment funds and submits some proposals to improve it. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a schematic description of the legal taxonomy for collective investment schemes. Section 3 addresses the EU disclosure regimes that apply to the distribution of various types of investment funds. Sections 4 and 5 consider conduct-of-business rules and, respectively, the legal framework for the allocation of supervisory powers on product regulation when fund units are distributed in more than one country. Section 6 provides some data that help assess the performance of the current framework for cross-border distribution. It then analyzes some of the residual legal rules and supervisory practices that still make cross-border distributions of funds more burdensome than purely national distributions, whether these restrictions are set forth in the country where investors are domiciled (Section 7) or in the fund's home country (Section 8).

scholarly journals Local nexus in merger control regimes

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-160
Author(s):  
Daniela Lukáčová
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Potential Effect ◽  
The State ◽  
Merger Control ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Market Shares ◽  
Economic Size ◽  
The Eu

Merger control is one of the competition law tools. While competition authorities in EU act primarily on the basis of national legislation, European Commission controls mergers with EU dimension. The jurisdictional tests relate only to the economic size of the parties and do not depend on the market shares of the parties or substantive impact of the transaction, or on whether the concentration will have any effects within the state. Globalization increases the number of multijurisdictional mergers that are subject to control of several competition authorities within or outside the EU. Differences in merger control proceedings in such cases with regard to the timeframe, or the result of the proceeding, could have a negative impact on the economy in another country. Parties to the concentration could decide to neglect the merger notification due to the timeframe, or complications connected with approving of multijurisdictional merger in other countries with jurisdiction. Therefore, the national authorities’ effort to set in their legislation turnover criteria with local nexus could help to control concentrations with potential effect on competition in their country.

21. Mergers (2): EU law

2021 ◽  
pp. 871-958
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Merger Control ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Merger Control ◽  
Merger Regulation ◽  
National Competition ◽  
Control Section ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines EU merger control. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of EU merger control. Section 3 discusses the jurisdictional rules which determine whether a particular merger should be investigated by the European Commission in Brussels or by the national competition authorities (‘the NCAs’) of the Member States. Section 4 deals with the procedural considerations such as the mandatory pre-notification to the Commission of mergers that have a Union dimension and the timetable within which the Commission must operate. Section 5 discusses the substantive analysis of mergers under the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR), and section 6 explains the procedure whereby the Commission may authorise a merger on the basis of commitments, often referred to as remedies, offered by the parties to address its competition concerns. The subsequent sections describe the Commission’s powers of investigation and enforcement, judicial review of Commission decisions by the EU Courts and cooperation between the Commission and other competition authorities, both within and outside the EU. The chapter concludes with an examination of how the EUMR merger control provisions work in practice.

MasterCard II: The Commission Pursues Its Antitrust Enforcement in Cross-Border Payments

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 297-300
Author(s):  
Sari Suurnäkki ◽  
Jaime Rodríguez-Toquero Aymerich
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Single Market ◽  
Antitrust Enforcement ◽  
Commission Decision ◽  
Cross Border

Abstract Case AT.40049 MasterCard II, Commission Decision of 22 January 2019 The European Commission finds that Mastercard’s cross-border acquiring rule limited the possibility for merchants to benefit from cheaper services offered by banks established elsewhere in the Single Market; Mastercard’s cooperation during the antitrust investigation was rewarded with a fine reduction.

scholarly journals Demand-Driven Efforts to Stop Deforestation in Brazil's Soy Sector are Unlikely to be Offset by Cross-Border Leakage

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nelson Villoria ◽  
Rachael Garrett ◽  
Florian Gollnow ◽  
Kimberly Carlson
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Policy Implementation ◽  
Supply Chains ◽  
Market Power ◽  
Great Promise ◽  
Forest Loss ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Soy Production ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Supply chain policies that leverage the upstream market power of trading companies and importing countries offer great promise to address forest clearing1,2 in regions of rapid commodity expansion but weak forest governance3,4. Yet leakage—when deforestation is not eliminated but instead pushed to other regions—is a potentially major but unquantified factor that could dilute the global effectiveness of regionally successful supply chain policies5,6. We find substantial domestic leakage rates (43-50%) induced by zero deforestation policy implementation in Brazil’s soy sector, but insignificant cross-border leakage (<3%) due to the interdependence of soy production in the U.S. and Brazil. Currently implemented zero-deforestation policies in the Brazilian soy sector offset 0.9% of global and 4% of Brazilian deforestation from 2011-2016. However, completely eliminating deforestation from the supply chains of all firms exporting soy to the EU or China over the same period could have reduced global deforestation by 2% and Brazilian deforestation by 9%. If major tropical commodity importers adopt policies that require traders to eliminate deforestation from their supply chains, as currently proposed in the EU, it could help bend the curve on global forest loss.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document