The EU Public Interest Clinic and Wikimedia Present: Extending Freedom of Panorama in Europe

This chapter briefly discusses the subject of merger control. Merger control is an important component of most, though not all, systems of competition law. Merger control has been under particular scrutiny in recent years, partly as a result of the rapid development of digital technologies and the emergence of powerful digital platforms. Separately there has been a certain backlash against the trend towards the globalisation of markets, and national governments, as well as the EU, have considered whether controls over the foreign acquisition of key industries are required, and whether the basic test of merger control – would a merger be harmful to competition? – should be supplemented by broader provisions enabling ‘the public interest’ to be taken into account. Against this background, the chapter begins by explaining what is meant by a ‘merger’ or ‘concentration’, the term used by the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR). It then proceeds to describe the different effects of mergers between independent firms from within and different production levels, the proliferation of systems of merger control, why firms merge, and the purpose of merger control. The final section of the chapter deals with how to design a system of merger control when a country decides, as a matter of policy, to adopt one.

Download Full-text

Governments and Activities in the Public Interest

Modernizing VATs in Africa ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198844075.003.0011 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 154-177

Author(s):

Sijbren Cnossen

Keyword(s):

New Zealand ◽

Private Sector ◽

Public Interest ◽

Unfair Competition ◽

The Self ◽

African Countries ◽

The Public ◽

African Experience ◽

The Eu

Chapter 11 discusses the EU legacy of taxing public bodies, illustrated by the African experience. The EU’s out-of-scope approach is bedevilled by distortions arising from the self-supply bias, the investment disincentive, and, somewhat more remotely, unfair competition vis-à-vis the private sector. Outside Africa, countries with VAT have addressed these issues differently. Various EU countries and Canada, for example, have designed input tax refund mechanisms to eliminate the self-supply bias and the investment disincentive. Still other countries, such as New Zealand, tax governments and activities in the public interest in full and have thus come to terms with the unfair competition issue, too. A concluding section summarizes the characteristics and effects of the various approaches and attempts to formulate a recommendation for African countries.

Download Full-text

Transparency and participatory aspects of investor-state dispute settlement in the EU ‘new wave’ trade agreements

Leiden Journal of International Law ◽

10.1017/s0922156519000360 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 32 (4) ◽

pp. 781-800 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Joanna Lam ◽

Güneş Ünüvar

Keyword(s):

Free Trade ◽

Public Interest ◽

Dispute Settlement ◽

Free Trade Agreements ◽

Trade Agreements ◽

Forum Shopping ◽

New Wave ◽

Commercial Arbitration ◽

Investment Arbitration ◽

The Eu

AbstractThis article scrutinizes the investment chapters in the new EU Free Trade Agreements from a transparency perspective. The article examines the claims that the dispute settlement mechanisms in the new treaties are sufficiently participatory and more transparent than their predecessors. Procedural standards related to confidentiality of proceedings shall be analysed in the context of existing transparency safeguards in investment arbitration. In addition to procedural guarantees of transparency, the article examines relevant substantive rules affecting participatory aspects of dispute settlement. Furthermore, the article discusses forum-shopping strategies of the parties in the field of investment-related disputes, including internal forum-shopping and parallel proceedings using different procedural mechanisms. In this context, lessons from other fields such as international commercial arbitration related to transparency (in cases in which public interest is present) are highlighted. The proposal for the establishment of an integrated, multilateral court for investment cases is also invoked.

Download Full-text

The Fight against Terrorism, Fundamental Rights and the EU Courts: The Unsolved Conundrum

Cambridge yearbook of European legal studies ◽

10.5235/152888712805580534 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 14 ◽

pp. 269-295

Author(s):

Eva Nanopoulos

Keyword(s):

Public Interest ◽

Relevant Information ◽

Fundamental Rights ◽

Public Security ◽

The Public ◽

Rights Protection ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

Conflicting Demands ◽

The Eu

AbstractUsing the example of anti-terrorism measures, this chapter looks at the difficulties experienced by the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in reconciling the conflicting demands of fundamental rights protection and public security. It shows that under the current arrangements, the CJEU cannot have regard to information which has not gone through a proper adversarial hearing, even in cases where disclosure of the relevant information will jeopardise the public interest. The chapter thus envisages the possibility for reform. It examines, in particular, the special advocate procedure and the sort of difficulties that its transposition in the EU context would give rise to.

Download Full-text

22. Mergers (3): UK

10.1093/he/9780198836322.003.0022 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 959-1018

Author(s):

Richard Whish ◽

David Bailey

Keyword(s):

Public Interest ◽

Test Section ◽

Merger Control ◽

Phase 2 ◽

Special Cases ◽

One Stop ◽

Control Section ◽

The Uk ◽

Reference Section ◽

The Eu

This chapter discusses UK law on the control of mergers. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of the domestic system of merger control. Section 3 explains the procedure of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) when determining whether a merger should be referred for an in-depth ‘Phase 2’ investigation and when deciding to accept ‘undertakings in lieu’ of a reference. Section 4 describes how Phase 2 investigations are conducted and Section 5 discusses the ‘substantially lessening competition’ (‘SLC’) test. Section 6 explains the enforcement powers in the Enterprise Act 2002, including the remedies that the CMA can impose in merger cases. The subsequent sections discuss various supplementary matters, such as powers of investigation and enforcement. The chapter concludes with a discussion of how the merger control provisions work in practice and a brief account of the provisions on public interest cases, other special cases and mergers in the water industry. The withdrawal by the UK from the EU means that many mergers that were subject to a ‘one-stop shop’ under EU law are now subject to investigation in the UK as well.

Download Full-text

A Silk Road for Professional Qualifications?

China and Europe on the New Silk Road ◽

10.1093/oso/9780198853022.003.0011 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 203-220

Author(s):

Ton van den Brink ◽

Sybe A. de Vries

Keyword(s):

Higher Education ◽

Public Interest ◽

Silk Road ◽

The Public ◽

Goods And Services ◽

Competing Interests ◽

Regulatory Strategies ◽

National Differences ◽

Legal Frameworks ◽

The Eu

The tension between the public interest to regulate professions, and the economic rationales to open up markets has long since been an issue within the EU. This chapter explores how these competing interests have shaped the EU’s legal frameworks for the recognition of professional qualifications. We will see that a range of regulatory strategies have been applied to design such frameworks. The next element of the analysis is based on the assumption that we may be able to draw lessons from the EU’s internal regulatory strategies to deal with national differences in regulating professions. Thus, the chapter will examine to what extent, and under which circumstances, such regulatory strategies may offer viable perspectives for Sino–EU relations; a crucially important question considering the implications of the New Silk Road for higher education on the trade of goods and services between China and Europe.

Download Full-text

A regulatory take on cannabis and cannabinoids for medicinal use in the European Union

Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology ◽

10.2478/aiht-2020-71-3302 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 71 (1) ◽

pp. 12-18

Author(s):

Metoda Lipnik-Štangelj ◽

Barbara Razinger

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Public Interest ◽

Marketing Authorisation ◽

Synthetic Cannabinoids ◽

Endocannabinoid System ◽

Legal Framework ◽

The European Union ◽

Medicinal Products ◽

Medicinal Use ◽

The Eu

AbstractThe discovery of the endocannabinoid system has raised public interest in the medicinal use of cannabis, phytocannabinoids, and synthetic cannabinoids, which has always been closely regulated due to their psychotropic effects and potential abuse. The review takes a quick look at the current legal framework in the European Union, which regulates cannabis use and cultivation for medicinal purposes in line with the United Nations Conventions on the production, trade, and use of cannabis, phytocannabinoids, and synthetic cannabinoids. And while the EU legislation precisely defines requirements and marketing authorisation procedures for medicinal products for all EU member states, there is no common regulatory framework for magistral and officinal preparations containing cannabinoids, as they are exempt from marketing authorisation. Instead, their regulation is left to each member state, and it is quite uneven at this point, mainly due to cultural and historical differences between the countries, leading to different access to non-authorised medicinal products. Therefore, to meet great public interest, harmonised approaches on cannabinoid-containing products without marketing authorisation would be welcome to level the playing field in the EU.

Download Full-text