Jurisdiction

Market definition, Türkiye

, , (ACTECON)/ /Leave a comment

The products and services surrounding mobile phones (e.g. mobile apps, browsers, search engines) have already proved to be a separate marketing tool for undertakings. This has triggered and created new challenges for competition law enforcement. Indeed, the competition authorities have had to deal with defining new relevant product markets and evaluating their market dynamics. In…

China, Price fixing

(Hogan Lovells, China)/ /Leave a comment

On 20 July 2018, the new Chinese antitrust authority – the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) – published two decisions sanctioning two ship tallying companies in Shenzhen for market partitioning and price fixing (see the Shenzhen Tally decisions here). Although the case is local and the decisions are short, the decisions have the potential…

Bulgaria, Electricity, Media, Mergers

(Eversheds Sutherland, Bulgaria)/ /Leave a comment

On 19 July 2018 the Bulgarian Commission for Protection of Competition (“BCPC”) refused to approve two separate concentrations – the acquisition of the vertically integrated business of CEZ Group of companies (owned by CEZ a.s., Czech Republic) by Inercom EAD (Bulgaria) and the acquisition of Nova Broadcasting Group AD by PPF TMT (the Netherlands). Both…

Brexit, Competition law, United Kingdom

(Pinsent Masons LLP)/ /Leave a comment

On 12 July, the UK Government published a White Paper setting out its proposal for a future UK-EU relationship, following Brexit. The type of UK-EU relationship which this envisages is unprecedented, reflecting from the UK’s perspective, the UK’s unique circumstances as a current EU Member State in full regulatory compliance with EU rules, and a…

Bulgaria, Media, Sector inquiries

(Kambourov & Partners) and / /Leave a comment

By its Decision № 717 dated 28 June 2018 the Bulgarian Commission for Protection of Competition (“the CPC”/”the Commission”) adopted a sector inquiry of a number of markets within the media sector. The decision contains some intriguing stances by the CPC, especially against the background of its own previous case law or the decisional practice…

Mergers, Pharmaceuticals, Russia

, , (ALRUD)/ /Leave a comment

Throughout the last year, the topics of globalization in the markets and digitalization of economy were extensively discussed within the governmental authorities and business community in Russia. One of the major concerns of the authorities and business community was development of competition in “digital era”. The Federal Antimonopoly Service (‘FAS Russia’) has found its pivotal…

Bulgaria, Media, Sector inquiries

, (Dimitrov, Petrov & Co.)/ /Leave a comment

Approximately 3 months after initiation of the sector inquiry into the media market in Bulgaria, the national Commission for Protection of Competition (the Commission) published its report on the conducted investigation. As intended, the Commission analysed the activities of all media service providers in the sector. The conclusions of the investigation, however, raise certain concerns…

De minimis, India, Mergers

, (NALSAR University of Law)/ /Leave a comment

Abstract There has been a recent case of ITC/Johnson & Johnson (decided on 11th December, 2017) surrounding the retrospective application of the law/notifications issued by the Indian competition authorities, where the Competition Commission ruled against the possibility of retrospective application of a De Minimis notification. It is pertinent to note that the issue has not…

Anti-dumping, India

(National Law School of India University)/ /1 Comment

Prior to the enactment of the Indian Competition Act, 2002 (‘Competition Act’), the Supreme Court of India delivered a decision that has been consigned to irrelevance, yet poses interesting questions for the future of competition law in India. In Haridas Exports v. All India Float Glass Association,[1](‘Haridas Exports’) the Supreme Court opined that the Customs…

India, Mergers, Minority shareholding

, (NALSAR University of Law)/ /Leave a comment

In the Indian Jurisdiction, Item I of Schedule I of the 2011 Combination Regulations exempts minority investments made “solely for investment purpose” and not leading to a change of control from notifying to the Competition Commission. However, the exact standard for assessment of the investment purpose and nature of conduct inconsistent with the exception is…