!function(c,h,i,m,p){m=c.createElement(h),p=c.getElementsByTagName(h)[0],m.async=1,m.src=i,p.parentNode.insertBefore(m,p)}(document,"script","https://chimpstatic.com/mcjs-connected/js/users/82483023e07c18cbf0f1ce6e5/b994e7c7bb828186d0aa59664.js"); -->
Allez visiter notre chaîne Youtube

The content and practice of competition law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Protecting consumers` interests (consumer welfare) and ensuring the competitiveness of entrepreneurs in a market economy are often seen as important objectives. Competition law is closely linked to the Law on Market Access Deregulation, State Aid and Subsidies, the privatisation of public assets and the establishment of independent sectoral regulatory bodies, as well as other supply-side market-oriented measures. In recent decades, competition law has been seen as a way to provide better public services. [10] Robert Bork argued that competition laws can have negative effects if they reduce competition by protecting ineffective competitors and when the cost of legal interventions outsighs the benefits to consumers. [11] Where an anti-competitive agreement is not exempted (individually or automatically under a block exemption), it is not applicable and may give rise to normal competition sanctions (including potentially high fines and the risk of damages from third parties). The provisions of Chapters I and II of the Competition Act 1998 prohibit any anti-competitive conduct which may affect trade within the United Kingdom. Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) also prohibit anti-competitive conduct. EU rules will be adopted within the UK from 1 UK companies with cross-border activities within the EU remain subject to EU competition law in respect of those activities and to national competition law in EU Member States.

FAS Russia discovered cartels of 1.5 billion rubles in the coal supply market* The FAS Russia Commission has recognized PJSC TGC-2, JSC Arhoblenergo and LLC TEC as a violation of antimonopoly legislation. Companies restrict competition by shortening the agreements between them and (…) Section 1 of Sherman`s Act declared « illegal any treaty, in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, aimed at restricting trade or commerce between different states or with foreign nations. » Section 2 prohibits monopolies or attempts and conspiracies to monopolize. After the adoption of 1890, the U.S. court applied these principles to businesses and markets. The courts applied the law without coherent economic analysis until 1914, when it was supplemented by the Clayton Act, which explicitly prohibited exclusive transactions, including related agreements and interdependent directions, as well as mergers effected through the purchase of shares. Beginning in 1915, the reason analysis of the courts was often applied to competition cases. However, the period was marked by the lack of enforcement of competition law. From 1936 to 1972, the application of antitrust rules by the courts was dominated by the structure-behavior-performance paradigm of the Harvard School. From 1973 to 1991, antitrust enforcement was based on statements of effectiveness when the Chicago School became dominant and legal writings such as Judge Robert Bork`s book, The Antitrust Paradox. Since 1992, game theory has often been used in cartel cases. [34] The Commission generally refers to these agreements as « marketing agreements ».

. . .

Comments are closed.