No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Groups of Undertakings and Competition – Regulatory Approaches in Europe –
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2009
Extract
Due to its connection with competition, the formation, the conduct, and the steering of groups of undertakings have been a subject of modern competition law since its emergence in the USA of the late 19th century. This is because market players might, by making use of their economic freedom to form and to act as groups, destroy this freedom. The question is, therefore, whether and to what extent legislation is required in order to get rid of this threat to the freedom of competition of the individual and competition itself as an institution. With the transition to a system based on freedom of contracts and freedom of competition, this question has also become topical in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEECs).
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press and the Authors 2001
References
1 Cf. for example the prohibition of monopolization in section 2 of the Sherman Act of 1890 and the FTC Act as first acts of specific regulation of concentrations.
2 See Rittner, , Wettbewerbs- und Kartellrecht, 6th ed. (Heidelberg: Müller 1999)Google Scholar § 13 marginal numbers 3 et seq.
3 On this issue and other effects of the formation of groups see the contribution of Kirchner, in: Hopt, Klaus J., Christa, Jessel-Holst and Katharina, Pistor (eds.), Emergence, Behavior, and Regulation of Company Groups in Transition Economies in Legal and Economic Perspective (forthcoming).Google Scholar
4 On this cf. Dreher, , Konglomerate Zusammenschlüsse, Verbotsvermutungen und Widerlegungsgründe (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 1987)Google Scholar; BKartA, , Megafusionen – Eine neue Herausforderung für das Kartellrecht, Dokumentation der IX. internationalen Kartellkonferenz 1999 (2000).Google Scholar
5 Cf. for example the rules on taxation of the skimming of excess profits.
6 With respect to the transition process in Eastern Europe see Ojala, , The Competition Law of Central and Eastern Europe (London: Sweet & Maxwell 1999) pp. 204 et seq.Google Scholar
7 On the respective legal situation in Germany see Dreher, , “Wirtschaftsrecht und Wirtschaftsaufsicht”, in: 50 Jahre BGH: Festgabe aus der Wissenschaft (Canaris, C.-W. [ed.]) volume II at IV. (Munich: Beck 2000).Google Scholar
8 See section 2.2 supra.
9 Cf. the short references to competition law in the reports in Wymeersch, (ed.), Groups of Companies in the EEC (Berlin: de Gruyter 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Monopolkommission, Hauptgutachten VII 1986/87 text numbers 796 et seq.; Kübler, / Schmidt, , Gesellschaftsrecht und Konzentration (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 1988)Google Scholar; Rittner, , “Gesellschaftsrecht und Unternehmenskonzentration”, ZGR (1990) 203Google Scholar; Nörr, , Die Republik der Wirtschaft: part I (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1999) pp. 201 et seq. and 253 et seq.Google Scholar
11 See section 2.2 supra.
12 Equally the Monopolkommission, supra n. 10, text number 799 number 2 and Rittner, supra n. 10, 206.
13 In favor: Monopolkommission, supra n. 10, text numbers 839 et seq.; opposed: Rittner, supra n. 10, 212.
14 See Dreher, , in: Immenga, / Mestmäcker, , GWB: Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen: Kommentar, 3rd ed. (Munich: Beck 2001)Google Scholar annotations before §§ 97 et seq. Marginal numbers 2 and 60.
15 Case C-389/92 Ballast Needam Groep [1994] ECR I-1289, para. 15; Case C-5/97 Ballast Needam Groep [1997] ECR I-7549, para. 12 = WuW/E Verg 29; ECJ of 2 December 1999 – Case C-176/98 Holst [1999] ECR I-8607, paras. 27 et seq. = WuW/E Verg 296.
16 Case C-44/96 Österr. Staatsdruckerei [1998] ECR I-114 para. 25 = WuW/E Verg 23; confirmed by the ECJ in Case C-360/96 Commune of Arnhem [1998] ECR I-6821, para. 55 = WuW/E Verg 166.
17 Cf. Article 97 of the ECSC Treaty.
18 See, in detail, Dreher, , “Kartellrechtsvielfalt oder Kartellrechtseinheit in Europa? – Harmonisierungsbedarf und Harmonisierungsgrenzen für nationale Kartellrechte”, AG (1993) 437Google Scholar; id., “Gemeinsamer Europäischer Markt – Einheitliche Wettbewerbsordnung?”, in: FIW (Forschungsinstitut für Wirschaftsverfassung und Wettbewerb) (ed.), Umbruch der Wettbewerbsordnung in Europa (Cologne: Heymanns 1995) 1Google Scholar; id., “Gemeineuropäisches Kartellrecht”, in: FS Söllner (Munich: Beck 2000) 217Google Scholar; Gerber, , Law And Competition in Twentieth Century Europe: Protecting Prometheus (Oxford: Clarendon 1998) pp. 401 et seq.Google Scholar
19 See Dreher, “Gemeineuropäisches Kartellrecht”, in: FS Söllner, ibid., 217, at pp. 223 et seq.
20 On the additional question of the development of international competition rules and their relationship with trade policy, cf. Scherer, , Competition Policies for an Integrated World Economy (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute 1994)Google Scholar; OECD, Trade and Competition Policies, 1999; Dörn, / Wilks, (eds.), Comparative Competition Policy (Oxford: Clarendon 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Immenga, , “Basic Principles for an International Competition Code”, in: Hope, (ed.), Competition and Trade Policies (London: Routledge 1998) 46.Google Scholar
21 See section 5 infra.
22 See e.g. Amato, , Competition and the Bounds of Power (Oxford: Hart 1997)Google Scholar; Möschel, , “Schutzziele eines Wettbewerbsrechts”, in: FS Rittner (Munich: Beck 1991) 405Google Scholar; Bouterse, , Competition and Integration – What Goals Count? (Deventer: Kluwer 1994)Google Scholar in particular on Article 81 (3) of the EC Treaty; Dreher, , “Der Rang des Wettbewerbs im Europäischen Gemeinschafts-recht”, in: Dörr, / Dreher, (eds.), Europa als Rechtsgemeinschaft (Baden-Baden: Nomos 1997) 105Google Scholar (also in WuW (1998) 656 et seq.); and on the relationship between competition and efficiency Dreher, , Konglomerate Zusammenschlüsse, Verbotsvermutungen und Widerlegungsgründe (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 1987) pp. 100 et seq.Google Scholar; Furse, , “The Role of Competition Policy”, ECLR (1996) 250Google Scholar; Willimsky, , “The Concept(s) of Competition”, ECLR (1997) 54Google Scholar, each with further references.
23 From the German cf. Rittner, Wettbewerbs- und Kartellrecht, supra n. 2, § 5 marginal numbers 48 and 59 et seq.; Möschel, , Recht der Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (Cologne: Heymanns 1983)Google Scholar marginal numbers 108 et seq.
24 See section 4.1 supra.
25 The law of the Member States is characterized by farther-reaching exceptions. See for example the new exemption for the central marketing of rights in sports events sub specie of Article 1 of the GWB; cf. Dreher, , “Die 6. GWB-Novelle”, in: FIW (ed.), Schwerpunkte des Kartellrechts 1998 (Cologne: Heymanns 1999) 111, at p. 117.Google Scholar
26 Cf. e.g. Cases 209-213/84, Asjes [1986] ECR 1425, at pp. 1465 et seq. = WuW/E EWG/MUV 730, 732; Case 45/85 Feuerversicherung [1987] ECR 405, at pp. 447, 451 = WuW/E EWG/MUV 739 et seq.
27 On the scope ratione materiae of the exemption see Regulation 26/62 OJ [1962] L 40 = WuW (1963) 778, as amended by Regulation 49/62, OJ [1962] L 53; OJ [1962] Spec Ed 129 = WuW (1963) 846 et seq.
28 ECJ of 15 December 1994 – Case C-250/92 Klim [1994] ECR I-5641 = EuZW( 1995) 244.
29 Cf., the ECJ decision in Feuerversicherung, supra n. 26.
30 Cf., the ECJ decision in Asjes, supra n. 26.
31 See also Regulation 141/62, OJ [1962] L 124/2751; OJ [1959-1962] Spec Ed 291 = WuW (1963) 848, adopted on the basis of Article 87 (now Article 83 EC) of the EC Treaty, and many subsequent regulations.
32 Cf. the overview in Veelken, , in: Immenga, / Mestmächer, , EG-Wettbewerbsrecht, vol. I (Munich: Beck 1997) 398Google Scholar, with extensive references, and for an assessment of the block exemption policy Rittner, , “Das europäische Kartellrecht”, JZ (1996) 377, at pp. 380 et seq.Google Scholar
33 See section 2.1.2. supra.
34 Cf. Article 6 of the GWB.
35 Cf. in detail e.g. Bellamy, / Child, , Common Market Law of Competition, 4th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell 1993)Google Scholar marginal numbers 4–038 et seq. and First Supplement, 1996, marginal number 4-040; Goyder, , EC Competition Law, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon 1998) pp. 169Google Scholar et seq., 463 et seq; each with further references.
36 Cf. most recently European Commission, 23rd Report on competition policy (1993) text number 84.
37 See e.g. Beeser, , Strategische Allianzen im EU-Wettbewerbsrecht (Munich: Beck 1996) pp. 29Google Scholar et seq. with further references.
38 Hereto Rittner, supra n. 2, § 8 marginal number 26 with further references.
39 Cf. e.g. Beeser, supra n. 37; Basedow, / Jung, , Strategische Allianzen (Munich: Beck 1993) pp. 138 et seq.Google Scholar; Ebenroth, / Schick, , “Vertikale Strategische Allianzen und Allianznetzwerke im europäischen Recht”, EWS (1994) 217Google Scholar, each with further references.
40 Regulation 4064/89, OJ [1989] L 395/1, with subsequent amendments (OJ [1990] L 257/13 and OJ [1997] L 61/1).
41 On the “Verbundklausel”, i.e. the calculation of turnover of grouped undertakings, cf. Article 5 (4) of the Merger Regulation.
42 Cf. Article 8 (4) of the Merger Regulation, and European Commission of 26 July 1997 WuW/E EU-V 167, 174 et seq. Blokker/TOYS ‘R” Us, OJ [1998] L 316/1.
43 Cf. European Commission of 29 March 1995 WuW/E EV 2309; cf. most recently European Commission of 27 January 1999 WuW (1999) 372, OJ [1999] C 92/10.
44 See e.g. Case 170/83 Hydrotherm [1984] ECR 2999, para. 11 = WuW/E EWG/MUV 657, 659.
45 Case C-73/95 P Viho Europe v. Commission [1996] ECR I-5457, para. 16 = EuZW (1997) 84.
46 Viho Europe v. Commission, supra n. 45, para. 17.
47 Cf. hence the English notion of this regulatory approach of competition law as doctrine of the “group economic unit” or the “economic entity”; see e.g., Goyder, supra n. 35, at pp. 91 et seq.; van Bael, / Bellis, , Competition Law of the European Community, 3rd ed. (Bicester: CCH Europe 1994) § 308Google Scholar; Roth, / Ackermann, , in: Frankfurter Kommentar zum GWB, 3rd ed., 44th installment (November 1999)Google Scholar, Article 81 of the EC Treaty, marginal numbers 65 and 209 et seq. These authors consider as missing the constituting element of “restriction of competition” rather than that of “undertaking”; from the German writings see e.g., Heitzer, , Konzerne im Europäischen Wettbewerbsrecht (Heidelberg: Recht und Wirtschaft 1999)Google Scholar; Pohlmann, , Der Unternehmensverbund im Europäischen Kartellrecht (Berlin: Duncker und Humblot 1999).Google Scholar
48 Article 8 (4); see section 4.4.2.3 supra.
49 Cf. Möschel, , Entflechtungen im Recht der Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (Tübingen: Mohr 1979) pp. 32 et seqGoogle Scholar. On the legal state in Germany cf. Rittner, supra n. 2, § 13 marginal number 11.
50 Cf. Dreher, , “Die wettbewerbsrechtliche Zulässigkeit der Information über Marktdaten”, in: FTW (ed.), Bewertung und Zulässigkeit von Marktinformationsverfahren (Cologne: Heymanns 1993) pp. 15 et seqGoogle Scholar. with further references; and most recently Bissocoli, , “Trade Associations and Information Exchange under US Competition and EC Competition Law”, World Competition (2000) (23) 79.Google Scholar
51 On the specific question of e.g. the attribution of abusive conduct of subsidiary to parent companies, which may have to be answered, cf. e.g. Heitzer, supra n. 47, at pp. 171 et seq. with further references.
52 Cf. for instance the comparative analysis by Wamser, , Enforcement of Competitionlaw – A Comparison of the Legal and Factual Situation in Germany, the EEC and the USA (Frankfurt: Lang 1994).Google Scholar
53 By inserting Article 54 para. 1 2nd sentence into the GWB via its 6th amendment of 1 January 1999, the German legislator tried to react to the so-called “Roß- und Reiter-Problematik”. Pursuant to this article, upon request, the competition authority can start a procedure of its own motion to protect a complainant. Also, the newly introduced possibility of substantiation in the meaning of Article 294 para. 1 ZPO (Code of Civil Procedure) in appeal proceedings against an order to disclose information is intended to improve the evidential position of the competition authority. By these means the identity of the complainant can possibly remain confidential.
54 On the question of the creation of an EC competition authority in its own right with the aim of inter alia avoiding extra-competitive political influence on decisions cf. Dreher, , “Do we need a European Competition Agency”, in: Wilson, / Rogowski, (eds.), Challenges to European Legal Scholarship: Anglo-German Legal Essays (London: Blackstone 1996) pp. 95 et seq.Google Scholar; id., “Gemeinsamer Europäischer Markt – Einheitliche Wettbewerbsordnung?”, in: FIW (ed.), Umbruch der Wettbewerbsordmmgen in Europa, supra n. 18, 1, at pp. 13 et seq.Google Scholar; Wilks, , “Competition Policy in the European Union: Creating a Federal Agency?”, in: Dörn, / Wilks, (eds.), Comparative Competition Policy, supra n. 20, 225Google Scholar, each with further references.
55 Cf. Articles 3 and 15 of Regulation 17/62 and Articles 8 and 14 of the Merger Regulation.
56 Cf. in more detail e.g. Dannecker, , in: Immenga, / Mestmäcker, , EG-Wettbewerbsrecht, vol. II (Munich: Beck 1997) 1830 et seq.Google Scholar; and e.g. the penalty payment of 230 Million EURO for violation of Article 81 of the EC Treaty by cardboard producers, which was confirmed by the Court of First Instance: Case T-295/94 cartonboard [1998] ECR II-813 = WuW/E EU-R 87.
57 Cf. Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases, OJ [1996] C 207/4 = EuZW (1997) 568; and Weitbrecht, , “Die Kronzeugenmitteilung in EG-Kartellsachen”, EuZW (1997) 555Google Scholar; Lutz, , “Amnestie für aufklärungsbereite Kartellanten?”, BB (2000) 677, at pp. 678 et seq.Google Scholar
58 For Germany cf. Lutz, ibid., at pp. 679.
59 Cf. Article 15 (4) of Regulation 17/62 and Article 14 (4) of the Merger Regulation.
60 Cf. on this issue Rittner, supra n. 2, § 14 marginal number 2, with further references.
60 Article 298 of the StGB (Criminal Code).
62 Cf. e.g. Case T-24/90 Automec II [1992] ECR II-2223 = EuZW (1993) 103.
63 Cf. generally Ojala, supra n. 6; OECD, Competition Law and Policy in the Baltic Countries (1999); World Bank (ed.), A Framework for the Design and Implementation of Competition Law and Policy (1999)Google Scholar; Breidenbach, (ed.), Handbuch Wirtschaft und Recht in Osteuropa, loose-leaf, 3 volumes (Munich: Beck state of 2000).Google Scholar
64 Cf. the list in Breidenbach, ibid., vol. 1, BiH 01 syst. marginal number 22.
65 Later it was partly amended; printed in Breidenbach, supra n. 63, WettbewerbsG 400 BG.
66 Printed in Ojala, supra n. 6, 272 et seq.; Bakardjieva, , “Das neue Wettbewerbsgesetz in Bulgarien”, GRUR Int. (1999) 395.Google Scholar
67 Printed in Ojala, supra n. 6, 295 and in OECD, supra n. 63, 27; Sepp, / Wrobel, , “Besonderheiten der Wettbewerbspolitik in einem Transformationsland – Die Entwicklung der Wettbewerbsordnung in Estland als Beispiel”, WuW (2000) 26.Google Scholar
68 Printed in Ojala, supra n. 6, 338; OECD, supra n. 63, 59.
69 Printed in Ojala, supra n. 6,352; hereto Virtanen, , “The new Competition Act in Lithuania”, ECLR (2000) 30Google Scholar; OECD, supra n. 63, 93.
70 Printed in Breidenbach, supra n. 63, KartellG 400 KRO; hereto Pešut, in Breidenbach, supra n. 63, KRO Syst. 41 marginal numbers 1 et seq.; Krneta, , “Das neue kroatische Kartellgesetz”, GRUR Int. (1996) 913.Google Scholar
71 Printed in Ojala, supra n. 6, 368; as an appendix to the notice of the President of the Ministerial Council of 22 April 1997 on the publication of a revised version of the law against monopolistic practices, a consolidated version of the anti-monopoly law of 24 February 1990 was published; cf. on this issue Kawecki/ Soltysiński, in: Breidenbach, supra n. 63, PL 42 syst. marginal numbers 1 et seq. (state of 1992); Sołtysiriński, , “Competition Laws in a Country in Transition: Polish Experience”, in: Ullrich, (ed.), Comparative Competition Law: Approaching an International System of Competition Law (Baden-Baden: Nomos 1998) 203Google Scholar; Planavova-Latanowicz, / Harding, , “The Control of Concentrations in the Czech Republic and Poland”, ECLR (1999) 265Google Scholar; Kepniski, / Harding, , “The New Polish Unfair Competition Law”, ECLR (1995) 487Google Scholar; “Bericht: Polen – Neufassung des Antimonopolgesetzes veröffentlicht, GRUR Int. (1997) 762Google Scholar; “Bericht: Polen – Novelle zum Antimonopolgesetz”, GRUR Int. (1995) 741Google Scholar; Wiszniewska, , “Patentlizenzverträge im Lichte neuer Entwicklungen im polnischen Kartellrecht”, GRUR Int. (1996) 568Google Scholar; and Schulze, , “Der rechtliche Rahmen der Wettbewerbspolitik und Privatisierung in Polen”, WuW (1991) 23.Google Scholar
72 Printed in Ojala, supra n. 6, 380; cf. “Bericht: Rumänien – neues Wettbewerbsgesetz”, GRUR Int. (1996) 1164Google Scholar; Zinsmeister, / Vasile, , “Romania's New Competition Law”, ECLR (1998) 164.Google Scholar
73 With amendments from 1995 and 1998; printed in Breidenbach, supra n. 63, Wett-bewerbsG 400 Rus; Olschewski/von Wistinghausen, ibid. Rus. Syst. 41 marginal numbers 1 et seq. (state of 1997); Hölzler, , “Privatisierung und Einführung von Wettbewerb in Rußland, in: Welfens, / Gloede, / Strohe, / Wagner, (eds.), Systemtransformation in Deutschland und Ruβland (Heidelberg: Physica 1999) 173CrossRefGoogle Scholar; von Wistinghausen, , Preisaufsicht mit Mitteln des Kartellrechts in der russischen Föderation (Berlin: Spitz 1999)Google Scholar; cf. also Yacheistova, , “What may the Commonwealth of Independent States expect from Multilateral Competition Rules?”, World Competition (2000) 51.Google Scholar
74 Printed in Ojala, supra n. 6,401; on the situation in Slovakia cf. Verny, in: Breidenbach, supra n. 63, CS Syst. 41 marginal numbers 1 et seq. (state of 1994), who refers to a law from 1991; and Piltz, , “Rechtsentwicklungen in Osteuropa – Am Beispiel tschechischen und slowakischen Kartellrechts”, in: Festschrift Vieregge (Berlin: de Gruyter 1995) 693.Google Scholar
75 Printed in Ojala, supra n. 6, 411.
76 Printed in Ojala, supra n. 6, 284; cf. “Bericht”, GRUR Int. (1991) 394Google Scholar; Verny, , “Das neue Wirtschaftsrecht in der Tschechoslowakei”, EuZW (1992) 85, at p. 86Google Scholar; Schulze, , “Das Kartellrecht in der Tschechoslowakei”, WuW (1992) 126Google Scholar; Piltz, , “Rechtsentwicklungen in Osteuropa – Am Beispiel tschechischen und slowakischen Kartellrechts”Google Scholar, in: FS Vieregge, ibid., 693; Planavova-Latanowicz, / Harding, , “The Control of Concentrations in the Czech Republic and Poland”, ECLR (1999) 265.Google Scholar
77 Printed in Ojala, supra n. 6, 311; and see Küpper, , “Ungarns neues Wettbewerbsgesetz”, Osteuroparecht (1997) 45Google Scholar; Toth, , “Competition Law in Hungary: Harmonization towards EU-Membership”, 1998 ECLR 358 et seq.Google Scholar; Hegyi, , “Neuere Entwicklungen im Kartell- und Wett-bewerbsrecht Ungarns unter Berücksichtigung der ungarischen Gruppenfreistellungsverordnung”, GRUR Int. (1999) 312Google Scholar; “Bericht: Ungarn – Neues Wettbewerbsgesetz”, GRUR Int. (1996) 1165Google Scholar; on the earlier state of the law cf. Rittner, , “Das ungarische Wettbewerbsrecht auf neuen Wegen”, WuW (1992) 24.Google Scholar
78 Printed in Breidenbach, supra n. 63, Ukr WettbG 400; hereto “Bericht: Ukraine – Änderung und Ergänzung zum Kartell- und Wettbewerbsrecht”, GRUR Int. (1996) 756Google Scholar; Deringer, , “Die Antimonopolpolitik der Ukraine”, WuW (1996) 788.Google Scholar
79 See 5.2 supra.
80 Cf. Hommelhoff, , “Das italienische Kartellrecht – Bemerkungen aus deutscher Sicht”, in: 6 Jahrbuch für italienisches Recht (1993) 3Google Scholar; and Dreher, , “Kartellrechtsvielfalt oder Kartellrechts-einheit in Europa?”, AG (1993) 437Google Scholar, at n. 1 and at p. 441 with further references.
81 See under 6.2.1 infra.
82 See, fundamentally, Rittner, , Wirtschaftsrecht, 2nd ed. (Heidelberg: Müller 1987)Google Scholar § 1 marginal numbers 36 et seq.; id., Wettbewerbs- und Kartellrecht, supra n. 2, Introduction marginal number 9.
83 See in the German discussion, Rittner, , “Das Kartellgesetz als die Magna Charta des Unternehmens?”, in: FS Raisch (Cologne: Heymanns 1995) 483Google Scholar; Dreher, , “Das GWB als Magna Charta des Wettbewerbs oder als Einfallstor politischer Interessen”, WuW (1997) 949.Google Scholar
84 European Commission, White paper on modernization of the rules implementing articles 85 and 86 [now 81 and 82 EC] of the EC Treaty [OJ [ 1999] C 132/1 ], deems both aspects particularly important in countries in transition. This is due to the dominant positions derived from former monopolies of numerous undertakings and the widespread tendency to cartels in line with “traditions of planned economy”.
85 Cf. e.g. on the Baltic States OECD, supra n. 63, 17.
86 See section 4.4.3.2 supra.
87 OJ [1999] L 335/1.
88 OECD, supra n. 63.
89 Ojala, supra n. 6.
90 Cf. instead the Commission's white paper, supra n. 84, and the contributions in Ehlermann, / Laudati, (eds.), Robert Schuman Centre Annual on European Competition Law (1996-1997).Google Scholar
90 Cf. van den Bossche, , “The International Dimension of E. C. Competition Law: the Case of the Europe Agreement”, ECLR (1997) 24Google Scholar; Schröter, / Delsaux, , in: Groeben, / Thiesing, / Ehlermann, (eds.), Kommentar zum EU-/EG-Vertrag, 5th ed. (Baden-Baden: Nomos 1997-1999)Google Scholar introductory remarks on Articles 85 – 89 marginal numbers 78 et seq.
92 OJ [1993] L 348/1, at pp. 16 et seq.
93 OJ [1996] L 208/24, printed in Ojala, supra n. 6, 263.
94 Annual aggregated turnover of the undertakings involved of less than 200 million EURO or affecting a maximum of 5 % of the relevant market.
95 On the partnership and its legal bases cf. Dreher, , “Die Beitrittspartnerschaft zwischen der Republik Polen und den europäischen Gemeinschaften und der Stand des europäischen Wirtschaftsrechts”, Osteuroparecht (1999) 36.Google Scholar
96 OJ [1998] C 202/63; see also the Council decision of 30 March 1998 on the principles, priorities, interim objectives and conditions contained in the accession partnership with the Republic of Poland, OJ [1998] L 121/6 and 8.
97 OJ [1998] C 202/69.
98 Council decision of 6 December 1999, OJ [1999] L 335/8, 10.
99 Ibid., at p. 12.
100 The Luxembourg competition law still dates from 1970.
101 In detail Dreher, “Gemeineuropäisches Kartellrecht”, in: FS Söllner, supra n. 18, 217, in particular at p. 230.
102 Cf. e.g. Monopolkommission Hauptgutachten XI (1994/1995) text number 133, at 147.
103 Hereto Dreher, in: FIW, supra n. 18, at pp. 11 et seq.; Möschel, , “Subsidiaritatsprinzip und Kartellrecht”, NJW (1995) 281Google Scholar; Jung, , Subsidiarität im Recht der Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (Heidelberg: Müller 1995)Google Scholar; Schlecht, , “Europäische Wettbewerbspolitik im Widerstreit zwischen Harmonisierung und Subsidiarität”, in: FS Mestmäcker (Baden-Baden: Nomos 1996) 747Google Scholar; 23rd EC competition report, text numbers 94, 189 et seq. and annex 394 et seq.
104 See section 4.1 supra.
105 See Dreher, , “Wettbewerb Oder Vereinheitlichung der Rechtsordnungen in Europa?”, JZ (1999) 105 et seq.Google Scholar; Monopolkommission, Sondergutachten 27: Systemwettbewerb, 1998; Hopt, “Kapitalmarktrecht und Aufsicht über Kapitalmarktintermediäre”, in: Grundmann (Hrsg.), Systembildung und Systemliicken in Kerngebieten des Europäischen Privatrechts (2000) 307, 320 et seq.
106 Cf. Dreher, in: FIW, supra n. 18, at pp. 4 et seq.; id., “Das deutsche Kartellrecht vor der Europäisiering”, WuW (1995) 881, at pp. 882 et seq.Google Scholar; id., supra n. 19, 231.
107 Cf. the apparently different view of Ojala, supra n. 6, 96 et seq. and 242 et seq., without however elaborating on the proposed “policy-based approach” departing from the “rule-based approach”.
108 On the question of a European competition authority in its own right see supra n. 54.
109 A separate issue is the question of competition law as to the definition of the relevant market including the consideration of “actual or potential competition of undertakings with a seat within or outside the scope of this law” in the meaning of Article 19 para. 2 no. 2 of the GWB; On the question of the territorial extension of the relevant product market from the point of view of German merger control see BGH JZ (1996) 1022 with an annotation by Dreher.
110 Cf. on the taking into consideration of competitiveness in the practice of Hungarian control of concentrations Erb, / Jahraus, / Mummert, / Schulz, / Voigt, , Konsequenzen der Globalisierung für die Wettbewerbspolitik (Frankfurt: Lang 2000) pp. 135 et seq.Google Scholar
111 Grounds RegE 6. Gesetz zur Änderung des GWB, BTDrucks. 13/9720, 32.
112 On this cf. e.g. Rehbinder, in: Immenga/ Mestmäcker, supra n. 32, vol. I, Introduction marginal numbers 37 et seq. with further references.
113 Following an application for an individual exemption.
114 Article 6 of the GWB; cf. in addition the ministerial approval of cartels in the general interest pursuant to Article 8 of the GWB.
115 On this cf. section 4.4.2.1 supra.
116 Cf. e.g. Buxbaum, and Sołtysiński, , in: Buxbaum, / Hertig, / Hirsch, / Hopt, (eds.), European Economic and Business Law (Berlin: de Gruyter 1996) pp. 125 et seqCrossRefGoogle Scholar. and 136 et seq.; Kollert, und Deringer, , in: FIW (eds.), Erfahrungen mil der Privatisierung von Monopolunternehmen (Cologne: Heymann 1999) pp. 55 et seqGoogle Scholar. and 59 et seq.; as well as Rittner, , “Die Umgestaltung in Osteuropa als wirtschaftsrechtliches Problem”, WuW (1991) 95.Google Scholar
On general questions on the transition of systems, beyond issues of privatization cf. e.g. the contributions in Drobnig, / Hopt, / Kötz, / Mestmäcker, (eds.), Systemtransformation in Mittel- und Osteuropa und ihre Folgen für Banken, Börsen und Kreditsicherheiten (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 1998)Google Scholar; Knell, / Rider, (eds.), Socialist Economies in Transition: Appraisals of the Market Mechanism (Aldershot: Elgar 1992)Google Scholar; Steilmann, , Systemtransformation aus Unternehmersicht, 1993; Strobel, Politische Stabilität als Voraussetzung für ökonomische Transformationsprozesse am Beispiel Bulgarien (Berlin: V & V 1993)Google Scholar; Schulte, , Staatliche Arbeitsmarktpolitik im Transformationsprozess ausgewählter Staaten Osteuropas (Polen, Ungarn, Tschechien) (Mainz, Univ. Diss. 1996)Google Scholar; Schulz-Nieswandt, , Ökonomik der Transformation als wirtschafts- und gesell-schaftspolitisches Problem (Frankfurt: Lang 1996)Google Scholar; Schweickart, / Witt, (eds.), Systemtransformation in Osteuropa (Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel 1996).Google Scholar